Council communism, Trotskyism, and the Vanguard

[Issaiah1332]

What is council communism, exactly? I have looked on wiki and some other places, but I cannot find much to answer this exactly.

Also what is the difference between this and the vanguard...as well as Trotskyism? I may be making comparisons between completely different things, if so, sorry.

[Tower of Bebel]

Council communism is a theory develloped in both Holland (f.e. Anton Pannekoek) and Germany in the 20th century (?). Council communism puts strong emphasis on the role of worker's councils during and after the revolution. It's criticizes the theory of Lenin's (and Trotsky's) vanguard party as being the primary instrument to lead the wokers to a socialist society. Council communism is situated towards the communist left (left-communism)

Trotskyism is marxist-leninism, but for a big part develloped as a reaction by Trotsky against the bureaucracy of the Soviet-Union after the death of Lenin (Stalinism). The soviet-Union at the end of Lenin's life and after his death was discribed by Trotsky as a degenerated worker's state. There's still a strong emphazis on the leading role of the vanguard party, but because of this reaction to Stalins undemocratic bureaucracy some Troskyists consider them to be supporters of worker's councils.

That all I'm about to write right now 'cause I have to study, and I'm still having a hard time writing in English.

EDIT

See it like this: "Without a guiding organisation the energy of the masses will dissipate like steam in a piston box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

It's a quote from Trotsky, and the piston box here is, according to Trotsky, definately the vanguard party. Council communism on the other hand refers to this piston box as the worker's council.

[RedLenin]

The differences between Council Communism and Trotskyism are not so much about the socialist society we wish to see, they are about tactics. Both Council Communists and Trotskyists believe that a revolution will bring about a democratic and centralized workers state based on workers councils. We also both believe that this revolution must be international.

Once we understand that similarity, the differences can be found. First, Trotskyists accept the theory of permanent revolution. I do not think council communism does. Essentially, Trotskyists accept the theoretical contributions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Council Communists do not accept the contributions of Lenin and Trotsky which include, the vanguard party, combined and uneven development, permanent revolution, etc.

There is also the difference on vanguard parties. Trotskyists see the class struggle as basically dialectical. In order for the working class to take power, there must be a dialectic of spontaneity and organization. The spontaneous movement of the class on its own cannot result in the taking of power; this movement of the masses needs to be harnessed by and focused through a revolutionary party. Only then can the proletariat take power. A vanguard party is the most advanced elements of the class centralized into one revolutionary party capable of leading the class in the taking of power. The purposes is not for the vanguard party to rule over the rest of the class as a bureaucracy, but merely to be at the head of the class in the struggle.

The final main difference is also tactical. Trotskyists believe that it is necessary to conduct revolutionary work within the mass organizations of the working class; the unions and the workers parties. Council Communists reject this and refuse to work in these mass organizations. They put emphasis on workers councils to the point of ignoring the already-existing working class organizations.

[Djehuti]

The best book on Council Communism is Cornelius Castoriadis' "Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society"

I would recomend everyone to read it.


Link (http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm)

[Tower of Bebel]

The final main difference is also tactical. Trotskyists believe that it is necessary to conduct revolutionary work within the mass organizations of the working class; the unions and the workers parties. Council Communists reject this and refuse to work in these mass organizations. They put emphasis on workers councils to the point of ignoring the already-existing working class organizations.

If that's true then I'm no longer shipping between council communism and trotskyism. Trotskyism it will be.

[Leo]

The final main difference is also tactical. Trotskyists believe that it is necessary to conduct revolutionary work within the mass organizations of the working class; the unions and the workers parties. Council Communists reject this and refuse to work in these mass organizations. They put emphasis on workers councils to the point of ignoring the already-existing working class organizations.

It is more like some right-wing Trotskyists consider organizations like Blair's Labour Party, SPD in Germany or even the Democratic Party in the US, all the social democratic organizations with a record of anti-working class activities and unions connected to them with their bureaucratic managers all living in their luxurious villas and going to the office in the Mercedes or BMW cars, as genuine working class organizations. Truly amusing :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 04:58 pm

The final main difference is also tactical. Trotskyists believe that it is necessary to conduct revolutionary work within the mass organizations of the working class; the unions and the workers parties. Council Communists reject this and refuse to work in these mass organizations. They put emphasis on workers councils to the point of ignoring the already-existing working class organizations.

It is more like some right-wing Trotskyists consider organizations like Blair's Labour Party, SPD in Germany or even the Democratic Party in the US, all the social democratic organizations with a record of anti-working class activities and unions connected to them with their bureaucratic managers all living in their luxurious villas and going to the office in the Mercedes or BMW cars, as genuine working class organizations. Truly amusing :rolleyes:
Or like how some Left-Communists consider the achievements of the workers in Cuba and elsewhere to be nothing more than bourgeois states simply because the revolution isn't what the Left-Communists want it to be.

[Leo]

Or like how some Left-Communists consider the achievements of the workers in Cuba and elsewhere to be nothing more than bourgeois states simply because the revolution isn't what the Left-Communists want it to be.

I don't think you know anything about either Cuba or left communism. Why don't you try to tell me what those achievements are? Do you know if the workers were actually involved in the "revolution" and do you know if they struggled for their own class demands? Were there lots of strikes before the Castro's seizure of power? Did the working class form its independent organs such as councils? Was it the workers who actually took power or was it just a hierarchical party and its armed band that took power by organizing a coup?

Left communists see the Cuba as a bourgeois state because it is a capitalist state, led by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, with actual proletarians being exploited. It is as capitalist as the rest of the world.

Also, this has nothing to do with the point I raised about so-called "workers organizations".

[Boriznov]

Council Communists find unions not revolutionary worthy because they are mostly led by pett-bourgeois and are limited in what they can do right now. If a union goes on strike they can only do it for a limited time because of lack of fundings. The point i'm trying to make, i find that unions are in hands of the enemy and are making us seem we have support.

[Alf]

A more key difference between Trotskyism and council communism than their respective positions on the unions or the party is the question of internationalism. Trotskyism abandoned it during the second world war by supporting the allied war effort, and the council communists (along with other left communist groups) maintained the position that Lenin upheld in 1914: turn the imperialist war into a civil war. In other words: council communism remained part of the proletarian movement, and Trotskyism passed to the other side of the barricades.

That said, certainly agree with Wingsomega: that the unions are in the hands of the enemy. And the Trotskyists do all they can to keep the workers in the hands of the unions.

[Issaiah1332]

Why is the Vanguard even needed? Why can't all the workers just rise up to seize power?

After the revolution, will the Vanguard Party be the dictators (so to speak) as in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat"? If not, I don't see the Vanguard stepping down that easily. Russia being a prime example.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:15 pm
Why is the Vanguard even needed? Why can't all the workers just rise up to seize power?

After the revolution, will the Vanguard Party be the dictators (so to speak) as in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat"? If not, I don't see the Vanguard stepping down that easily. Russia being a prime example.
Leninism pronounces the fact that the communist party should lead the dictatorship.

[The Grey Blur]

Alf, Winsomega: :lol: I love how sinister you make us sound.

Okay, unions in their current forms and capacity are compromised with the bourgeois, lead by a priveliged bureaucracy which deflect the demands and discontent of their rank and file members. But, these bureaucratised, ineffective, corru[t unions are still - at the heart of the matter - worker's organisations, born from the living class struggle. We do not abandon the working-class to the mercy of this compromised bureaucracy but instead struggle against it - demanding the re-introduction of democracy and the creation of fighting unions. At the same time, we must point out the inherent limits of trade union work and how only a socialist revolution can fully provide for the workers and offer them a solution to the exploitation they currently face. Anything other than this approach to mass worker's organisations - especially those which require basic class consciousness as a pre-requisite to membership - is ultra-leftism and doomed to failure. We should not only focus on organised labour though, we should in fact be working to unionise the non-unionised and most exploited sectors of the work-force - young people and immigrants for example. Here concrete victories can be won for the worker's and socialist movement.

Secondly, on the question of the 2nd world war - Trotskyists opposed fascism (along with the working-classes of Britiain, America, France, etc) but also opposed the imperialist actions of some nations (specifically America in the Pacific and the European Allies in the middle east and africa) and demanded a revolutionary war, directed by industry and worker's councils, be waged. In fact, certain units in the army were won over to a Communist position by the Trotskyists who joined the armies with the working-classes and these units attempted to secure Socialist governance domestically and in the areas were they fought. The British armies which mutinied in Africa are an example of this. Nazism, responsible for the murder and persecution of millions, had to be crushed.

[Boriznov]

Why join the enemy ? It would be best if there were set up new councils or even call them unions then join the current existing ones as they are run by petty-bourgeois. If they let the current unions die then then the enemy will have no control over the worker in that fact. The workers should start there own councils and let the unions die. You can't change from within, you need to crush the system not reform it.

[The Grey Blur]

Why is the Vanguard even needed? Why can't all the workers just rise up to seize power?
A good question. The vanguard is simply the most advanced section of the working-class, and outof this arises the vanguard party. I would say it is neccessary to have this party because not the entire working-class becomes conscious at the same time and because a guiding organisation is neccessary to educate and give leadership to the revolutionary masses. That said, we do not look to supplant the working-class, but offer our constant support and revolutionary strategy.

Trotsky on the need for a vanguard party: "Without a guiding organisation the energy of the masses will dissipate like steam in a piston box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

Raccoon actually cited that earlier, but it is simply a very concise description of why the vanguard party is a historical neccessity.


After the revolution, will the Vanguard Party be the dictators (so to speak) as in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat"?
The proleteriat alone are the dictators of the socialist state.


If not, I don't see the Vanguard stepping down that easily.
I agree, we had a discussion on this a short while ago actually. There need to be checks and balances in place to ensure that a priveliged layer of party officials doesn't usurp the power of the working-class. What measures can be taken to ensure this are up for debate but Lenin provided some key points:

1.That all officials to be elected and subject to recall
2.To no official recieve more than a workman's wage
3.That all official jobs should be rotated, and as all govern none shall govern


Russia being a prime example.
In what sense? The USSR was choked at birth - the failure of the German revolution, the German incursion, the Capitalist counter-revolution - all these factors combining to grind down the revolutionary working-class and allowing a bureaucracy to seize political power. The Bolsheviks of course also made errors, but we can only learn from those, rather than dismissing them out of hand.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:30 pm
Why join the enemy ? It would be best if there were set up new councils or even call them unions then join the current existing ones as they are run by petty-bourgeois. If they let the current unions die then then the enemy will have no control over the worker in that fact. The workers should start there own councils and let the unions die. You can't change from within, you need to crush the system not reform it.
Why would workers join your new union? The power of the unions is that they are made up of their members. A union made up of you, your three ultra-left friends and a dog won't frighten the capitalist unfrotunately. The unions won't die as they are a part of the class conflict that capitalism constantly stimulates.

[Boriznov]

Ah yes they are fighing the class conflict if there 'elected' leader is a petty-bourgeois aspiring to become a bourgeois completely.

Who said it would be my union ? It would make more sense if the workers start there own and do all the decisions themselves ex. when the next strike is going to be.

I know we will not agree on this topic so this discussion could go on for ages.

[The Grey Blur]

Ah yes they are fighing the class conflict if there 'elected' leader is a petty-bourgeois aspiring to become a bourgeois completely.
No they are fighting the class conflict when they organise into unions in the first place:


Originally posted by Marx
The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Thus we see, unions are organs of the class struggle - used by workers in their transitional stuggle for things like better working conditions, fairer pay, etc. What we need to do is work within the current mass unions to turn them into organs of the revolutionary struggle. This can be done by gaining the support of the rank and file members and kicking out the bureaucrats who are totally out of touch. Setting up an independent union is infeasible and impractical. Not only this, but you would be isolating the most class conscious elements of the working-class from the less class conscious, leaving them to the mercy of the reactionary bureaucrats and the capitalist propaganda machine.


It would make more sense if the workers start there own and do all the decisions themselves ex. when the next strike is going to be.
Of course. That is why the current, comprising and corrupt, unions must be democratised and run by the workers, for the workers. Fighting unions.


I know we will not agree on this topic so this discussion could go on for ages.
It really shouldn't though. Are you so out of touch with the worker's movement that you actually think independent unions are the way forward? You are putting the cart before the horse.

[Leo]

I love how sinister you make us sound.

Well, for young people like you I would imagine the right word be naive rather than sinister - no offense.


Okay, unions in their current forms and capacity are compromised with the bourgeois, lead by a priveliged bureaucracy which deflect the demands and discontent of their rank and file members. But, these bureaucratised, ineffective, corrupt unions are still - at the heart of the matter - worker's organisations

What makes you say that? Unions are clearly not organs of the working class, I mean actual, independent organs that are open to all workers and that try to unite all workers. They divide the workers into different sectors, in some cases different ideologies and most importantly they are lead by and they serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. I mean, unions are mostly integrated in the state, do you think that the state you live under is, although lead by a privileged bureaucracy which deflect the demands and discontent of their rank and file members, are - at the heart of the matter - worker's states?


born from the living class struggle.

Long time ago. I guess that's why the Trotskyist ideology is rotting, it doesn't feel the need to make analysis, it already has pre-established "truths".


We do not abandon the working-class to the mercy of this compromised bureaucracy but instead struggle against it - demanding the re-introduction of democracy and the creation of fighting unions.

What about the workers who are struggling outside the unions? What are you doing about them? I know that trying to run for the union leadership is common practice in Trotskyism (I think that is what you mean while saying "demanding the re-introduction of democracy and the creation of fighting unions"). Yet, what makes you think that an organization that is led by the bourgeoisie and that serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, that sabotages workers struggles whenever it can, will magically become good when "democracy" is introduced to it? Can you create the dictatorship of the proletariat by getting elected into the office and "introducing democracy"? As I said, I think that you are sincerely believing this and this is why I think you are naive. Yet, I would imagine that most people who are defending your positions are just bourgeois politicians - not revolutionaries.


At the same time, we must point out the inherent limits of trade union work and how only a socialist revolution can fully provide for the workers and offer them a solution to the exploitation they currently face.

Yet after that point this will be just rhetoric. It is like the social democracy in Germany, saying that they will support the government in war effort but are still supporting socialism.


Anything other than this approach to mass worker's organisations

Again, they might be mass organizations with workers in them but they are not workers organizations because they are lead by and they serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. There are other mass organizations with workers in them, like the Army for example, do you think that a bourgeois army is a workers organization as well?


is ultra-leftism

Sigh, fine with me ;)


and doomed to failure.

And how do you know that? I would say that any effort to re-claim the unions by becoming members is doomed to failure. This is just common sense: an organ that is integrated to the bourgeois state apparatus, that is lead by the bourgeoisie and that only serves the bourgeoisie is an institution of the bourgeoisie. The institutions of the bourgeoisie should be crushed, luckily in the case of unions, when the workers are uniting, that automatically happens. Communists should defend the unity and independence of the entire working and the establishment of independent working class organs, mass assemblies, strike committees, workers councils etc. Organization that can only be established when workers from public and private sectors, unionized and non-unionized workers, waiters and agricultural workers, drivers and teachers are all coming together around their class interests. This destroys the unions, in that sense working for the unity of the entire working class is already calling for the destruction of the unions. After all, the union exists as much as its capacity to influence the working class and its ability to divide the working class. When it can't prevent workers from different sectors coming together in class struggle, when it can't make workers stop striking and go home when it orders them to do so, then this would only mean one thing: that our bourgeois-bureaucrats leading the unions lost their jobs.


Secondly, on the question of the 2nd world war - Trotskyists opposed fascism

Some of them actually supported fascist regimes. The rest did not oppose fascism, they called for the destruction of Germans. The anti-German feelings were so intense in the Trotskyist movement that it contributed to German Trotskyist groups such as the RKD evolving towards the positions of the communist left.


Nazism, responsible for the murder and persecution of millions, had to be crushed.

But it wasn't crushed; it was integrated into Western "democracies". It was the proletariat that got crushed in World War II, losing 70 million people in total.

[Boriznov]

I can't believe that you can change the unions from within so i propose to indeed set up independent councils, they way it should be in my opinion.

[Issaiah1332]

The proleteriat alone are the dictators of the socialist state.

Yes, that is how it is supposed to be. I do not recall Marx mentioning anything about a Vanguard party, and I am not a Leninist...so I don't exactly agree with the need of such a party. I agree that there will have to be leaders, in some sense.

But...during the socialist stage the Vanguard party will become the state, instead of all the proletarian. I do not agree with this, in order for the state to "wither away" the Vanguard would have to step down...but would they do that? I do not see that happening easily, look at the Bolsheviks.

[Boriznov]

I fully agree Issiah

[Issaiah1332]

combined and uneven development, permanent revolution

Can you define these please?

[RedLenin]

I do not recall Marx mentioning anything about a Vanguard party
He did not use the phraze "vanguard party" but he did speak, over and over again, about how the communists are the most advanced section of the working class. He also spoke about how the communists need to take a leading role and be at the forefront of the struggles of their class. Essentially, Marx invented the concept, Lenin expanded it and gave it a name.


But...during the socialist stage the Vanguard party will become the state
How do you figure? The point is for the workers themselves to take power, through their workers councils and with the leadership of the party. In this way, the workers councils form the apparatus of the state. The party will certainly exist within this state, but the party will not lord over the state as a bureaucracy. All state officials will be electeded, they will be able to be recalled at any time, the army will be democratically accountable to the working people, and no official will receive a wage above that of an average worker. Also, with term limits and the right of recall, more and more working people will hold state positions and, over time, everyone will govern. When everyone governs soon no one will govern. This is a workers state. But a workers state will never, ever, come into existence without a militant marxist leadership willing to lead the workers councils to power. A vanguard party is necessary.


look at the Bolsheviks.
This is a point of enormous misunderstanding. Prior to October, the Bolsheviks won a majority in the soviets. Under Bolshevik leadership, the soviets launched the insurrection that put the All-Russian Congress of Soviets into power. The congress elected a central comittee, and the central committee in turn elected a Council of People's Commissars. Both the central committee and the Council of People's Commissars were accountable to the All-Russian Congress. All officials were elected and the right of recall existed. It was the soviets that took power, not the Bolshevik party. The Bolshevik party did hold the majority in the soviets, but they still shared power with the Left-Social Revolutionaries. The Soviet government and the Bolshevik party degenerated due to the isolation of the revolution and the backwardness of Russia. The soviet government relied more and more on specialists, such as managers, czarist officers, etc. This over-reliance on specialists, which was forced by the adverse material conditions, contributed enormously to the growth of a parasitic bureaucracy. When Stalin came to power and consolidated his rule, this meant the triumph of the bureaucracy and the death of October. It was not the fault of the Bolsheviks that lead to the degeneration of the Soviet government, it was the adverse material conditions.


Can you define these please?
Yes, in brief. Combined and uneven development basically states that, in backward countries, there can exist a small but powerful proletariat concentrated in the cities. The productive forces in these cities can be quite advanced, despite the backwardness of the country as a whole. From this comes the theory of the Permanent Revolution, which was carried out successfully in October 1917. It states that the bourgeoisie everywhere can only play a reactionary role. In backward countries that have not undergone the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the bourgeoisie cannot lead the people in carrying out the bourgeois-democratic tasks, as it is tied by a thousand threads to both the land-lord class and the imperialists. Therefore, only the urban proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasantry, can carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, must seize power and carry out the bourgeois-democratic tasks; land reform, national unity, etc. However, the proletariat cannot stop half-way, but must continue on with the socialist tasks. So essentially, the theory of permanent revolution states that the bourgeois-democratic revolution can only be carried out by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that the victorious proletariat must then move on to the socialist tasks. Further, the victory of the proletariat in a backward country would spark revolution in advanced countries. If the workers state in the backward country is to survive, it needs support from revolutions in other countries especially advanced ones. This revolution spreads all over the world until the proletariat is victorious on a global scale. That is the theory of Permanent Revolution.

[Janus]

Council communism (http://libcom.org/thought/council-communism-an-introduction)

Council communists accept revolutionary parties (not vanguard parties) but believe that their primary role is simply just to agitate among the working class.

Trotskyism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60917&hl=Trotskyism)
Trotskyism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59121&hl=Trotskyism)

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 06:12 pm

Or like how some Left-Communists consider the achievements of the workers in Cuba and elsewhere to be nothing more than bourgeois states simply because the revolution isn't what the Left-Communists want it to be.

I don't think you know anything about either Cuba or left communism. Why don't you try to tell me what those achievements are? Do you know if the workers were actually involved in the "revolution" and do you know if they struggled for their own class demands? Were there lots of strikes before the Castro's seizure of power? Did the working class form its independent organs such as councils? Was it the workers who actually took power or was it just a hierarchical party and its armed band that took power by organizing a coup?

Left communists see the Cuba as a bourgeois state because it is a capitalist state, led by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, with actual proletarians being exploited. It is as capitalist as the rest of the world.

Also, this has nothing to do with the point I raised about so-called "workers organizations".

I don't think you know anything about either Cuba or left communism. Why don't you try to tell me what those achievements are?

The healthcare, universal housing, literacy rates, education, equity. Those are just a few. Most importantly, the control that the workers have over Cuban society. Do you think that Castro single handedly made Cuban society what it is today? Of course not, the workers did through their control of society (it would be contrary to materialism to say otherwise).


Do you know if the workers were actually involved in the "revolution" and do you know if they struggled for their own class demands? Were there lots of strikes before the Castro's seizure of power? Did the working class form its independent organs such as councils? Was it the workers who actually took power or was it just a hierarchical party and its armed band that took power by organizing a coup?

The revolution was carried out by many people, all of them dedicated to establishing socialism (you don't get shot at in the jungles for years without conviction). However, without the support of the workers, the revolutionary forces would have been defeated within weeks. Instead, they were victorious thanks to the support of the people. Again, you have ignored a materialist view of the world in favor of your unfounded bias.


Left communists see the Cuba as a bourgeois state because it is a capitalist state, led by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie, with actual proletarians being exploited. It is as capitalist as the rest of the world.

No, left communists attack the achievements of the Cuban workers because it doesn't fit their puritan imagination. Left communists criticize worker movements because they don't like how revolutions actually work in the real world.

To say that Cuba is a "bourgeois state...led by a bureaucratic bourgeoisie" is extraordinarily wrong. Such a statement is delusional and in defiance of the facts and anyone with a shred of knowledge knows this. Not only is there a complete dearth of capitalist relations (it is certifiably insane to charge that there are), Cuban society is built upon worker organizations.

Read up, it might help:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html


Also, this has nothing to do with the point I raised about so-called "workers organizations".

You first raised criticisms of Trotskyists, so I felt compelled to point out flaws in left communism.

[Issaiah1332]

How do you figure? The point is for the workers themselves to take power, through their workers councils and with the leadership of the party. In this way, the workers councils form the apparatus of the state. The party will certainly exist within this state, but the party will not lord over the state as a bureaucracy. All state officials will be electeded, they will be able to be recalled at any time, the army will be democratically accountable to the working people, and no official will receive a wage above that of an average worker. Also, with term limits and the right of recall, more and more working people will hold state positions and, over time, everyone will govern. When everyone governs soon no one will govern. This is a workers state. But a workers state will never, ever, come into existence without a militant marxist leadership willing to lead the workers councils to power. A vanguard party is necessary.

Why do we really even need leaders in the state? Why can't all of the proletarian lead?

If the Vanguard form the state, they will not just relinquish their power. During a revolution, usually the leaders are not exactly elected. Napoleon was never "elected," although supported, he was not democratically elected, neither was Fidel.

Do you really think that Fiedel would just give up power? I support him and respect him, but...he and his party are not going to give up power.

Why would more and more people hold leadership positions? This is all ideology.

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not a party of elected officials, it is a state of all the workers. It is needed to suppress the bourgeoisie, it is a tool to help abolish capitalism and equate everyone. You cannot just say that more and more people will get more and more power, until, inevitably, everyone holds power. You should suppress those who had power in the previous society, until they have the same power as the workers. I.E turn the capitalist into workers...

Sorry if that was not well articulated, sometimes it's hard to say what, exactly, you mean.

[Issaiah1332]

What exactly is left communism?

Is it sort of like a strict, even more radical code of communism and how it should come about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ According to Lenin, it's "an infantile disorder." ;)


Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:48 pm
In order for the working class to take power, there must be a dialectic of spontaneity and organization.
That's Rosa Luxemburg there, NOT Leon Trotsky (and you didn't credit HER). :angry:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:59 pm
A more key difference between Trotskyism and council communism than their respective positions on the unions or the party is the question of internationalism. Trotskyism abandoned it during the second world war by supporting the allied war effort, and the council communists (along with other left communist groups) maintained the position that Lenin upheld in 1914: turn the imperialist war into a civil war. In other words: council communism remained part of the proletarian movement, and Trotskyism passed to the other side of the barricades.

That said, certainly agree with Wingsomega: that the unions are in the hands of the enemy. And the Trotskyists do all they can to keep the workers in the hands of the unions.
So the fight against Nazism wasn't worth an "abandonment," then? [This from an ex-Trotskyist AND ex-Stalinist - turned pure "Leninist" Marxist]



P.S. - I do agree with you and Wing on that last point re. unions.


Why join the enemy ? It would be best if there were set up new councils or even call them unions then join the current existing ones as they are run by petty-bourgeois. If they let the current unions die then then the enemy will have no control over the worker in that fact. The workers should start there own councils and let the unions die. You can't change from within, you need to crush the system not reform it.

[RedLenin]

Why do we really even need leaders in the state?
We need democratically elected and accountable leaders. Without formal democratic leadership, the most ambitious and skillfully manipulative leaders will take more and more power. Really the key to successful democracy is formal leadership.


If the Vanguard form the state
I clarified my position on that in the paragraph you quoted.


Why would more and more people hold leadership positions?
More and more working people will hold state positions because of the democratic checks and balances that will exist from day one. Term limits and the right of recall ensure that more and more people can hold government positions. This rotation of administrative tasks is very possible and necessary.


That's Rosa Luxemburg there, NOT Leon Trotsky (and you didn't credit HER).
Yes, but I was just using the phraze as a way to state the idea I was trying to get across. Yes, it was Rosa Luxemburg's idea and I agree with her there. I never said it was Trotsky's idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:47 am
We need democratically elected and accountable leaders. Without formal democratic leadership, the most ambitious and skillfully manipulative leaders will take more and more power. Really the key to successful democracy is formal leadership.
^^^ To be fair, that's what Lenin did (not ambitious in terms of self, but ambitious in terms of revolution itself). I'm not for formal leadership, alas - preferring COLLECTIVE leadership at the top. The problem with the losers in Stalin's power struggle is that they didn't want the "boring" jobs, while Stalin was all too content to have them. Things may have turned out better had Sverdlov remained alive.

I also acknowledge the "bureaucratism" problem (as opposed to individual figures), but no single event in detail is inevitable (groups set the stage, but individuals also pull the strings). After all, the Bolsheviks would NOT have gained power without Lenin rejecting that same "troika" who preferred continued dual power in the shrinking window of opportunity.

Party "leaders" should derive their leadership from state positions (like Lenin did), not from within the party (although, to be fair, Stalin shifted toward this emphasis on the state over the party, too (http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/05/19/106.html)).

[Leo]

The healthcare, universal housing, literacy rates, education

Basic characteristics of state capitalism, not only in so-called socialist countries but also countries in Europe, especially Scandinavia, America since FDR, third wayist countries such as Libya, Egypt of the past, Baathist regimes etc. Even in Turkey, there is free health care, free education, free universities, increasing literacy rates etc. What you describe is basically social security services, the welfare state, state capitalist regime; a universal tendency of the 20th century which is now falling apart, and with it capitalism is falling apart.


equity

Now that doesn't exist in Cuba.


Most importantly, the control that the workers have over Cuban society.

That doesn't exist either. There is the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie and there is the working class, wage-slaves being exploited by the bourgeoisie.


Do you think that Castro single handedly made Cuban society what it is today?

No, I think the Cuban bourgeoisie made the Cuban society what it is today.


The revolution was carried out by many people, all of them dedicated to establishing socialism (you don't get shot at in the jungles for years without conviction). However, without the support of the workers, the revolutionary forces would have been defeated within weeks. Instead, they were victorious thanks to the support of the people. Again, you have ignored a materialist view of the world in favor of your unfounded bias.

If what you said was true, no coup could have ever taken place without the support of the "people". The revolution was carried out by nationalists who were against Batista, of whom most wasn't even Stalinists yet (although there were some Stalinists involved). There weren't any workers struggles for class demands or independent working class organizations involved. It wasn't a proletarian revolution; in fact, it wasn't a revolution, it was a coup d'etat.


No, left communists attack the achievements of the Cuban workers because it doesn't fit their puritan imagination.

Sorry kid, you don't know anything about left communism so perhaps you should try to read a bit before talking about the subject.


Not only is there a complete dearth of capitalist relations

No, there isn't. There is the working class, the wages slaves, those who produce, and there is the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie, those who exploit.


You first raised criticisms of Trotskyists, so I felt compelled to point out flaws in left communism.

Why? Did I offend you that much? Did you feel unable to answer the criticisms about Trotskyist so that you felt compelled to point out "flaws" in left communism?

[Leo]

What exactly is left communism?

I would say check this thread out:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64988&st=0

The basic positions of the ICC explain left communism quite well:


The International Communist Current defends the following political positions:
* Since the First World War, capitalism has been a decadent social system. It has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. In the 1980s, it entered into the final phase of this decadence, the phase of decomposition. There is only one alternative offered by this irreversible historical decline: socialism or barbarism, world communist revolution or the destruction of humanity.

* The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first attempt by the proletariat to carry out this revolution, in a period when the conditions for it were not yet ripe. Once these conditions had been provided by the onset of capitalist decadence, the October revolution of 1917 in Russia was the first step toward of 1917 in Russia was the first step towards an authentic world communist revolution in an international revolutionary wave which put an end to the imperialist war and went on for several years after that. The failure of this revolutionary wave, particularly in Germany in 1919-23, condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation and to a rapid degeneration. Stalinism was not the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger.

* The statified regimes which arose in the USSR, eastern Europe, China, Cuba etc and were called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ were just a particularly brutal form of the universal tendency towards state capitalism, itself a major characteristic of the period of decadence.

* Since the beginning of the 20th century, all wars are imperialist wars, part of the deadly struggle between states large and small to conquer or retain a place in the international arena. These wars bring nothing to humanity but death and destruction on an ever-increasing scale. The working class can only respond to them through its international solidarity and by struggling against the bourgeoisie in all countries.

* All the nationalist ideologies - ‘national independence’, ‘the right of nations to self-determination’ etc - whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in tr in the interests and wars of their exploiters.

* In decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are nothing but a mascarade. Any call to participate in the parliamentary circus can only reinforce the lie that presents these elections as a real choice for the exploited. ‘Democracy’, a particularly hypocritical form of the domination of the bourgeoisie, does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism.

* All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

* With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.

* In order to advance its combat, the working class has to unify its struggles, taking charge of their extension and organisation through sovereign general assembliassemblies and committees of delegates elected and revocable at any time by these assemblies.

* Terrorism is in no way a method of struggle for the working class. The expression of social strata with no historic future and of the decomposition of the petty bourgeoisie, when it’s not the direct expression of the permanent war between capitalist states, terrorism has always been a fertile soil for manipulation by the bourgeoisie. Advocating secret action by small minorities, it is in complete opposition to class violence, which derives from conscious and organised mass action by the proletariat.

* The working class is the only class which can carry out the communist revolution. Its revolutionary struggle will inevitably lead the working class towards a confrontation with the capitalist state. In order to destroy capitalism, the working class will have to overthrow all existing states and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale: the international power of the workers’ councils, regrouping the entire proletariat.

* The communist transformation of society by the workers’ councils does not mean ‘self-management’ or the nationalisation of the economy. Communism requires the conscious abolition by the working class of capitalist social relations: wage labour, commodity production, national frontiers. It means the creation of a world community in which all activity is oriented towards the full satisfactisfaction of human needs.

* The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to ‘organise the working class’ nor to ‘take power’ in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat’s combat.

OUR ACTIVITY
Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions.

Organised intervention, united and centralised on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.

The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.

OUR ORIGINS
The positions and activity of revolutionary organisations are the product of the past experiences of the working class and of the lessons that its political organisations have drawn throughout its history. The ICC thus traces its origins to the successive contributions of the Communist League of Marx and Engels (1847-52), the three Internationals (the International Workingmen’s Association, 1864-72, the Socialist International, 1889-1914, the Communist International, 1919-28), the left fractions which detached themselves from the degenerating Third International in the years 1920-30, in particular the German, Dutch and Italian Lefts.

[KC]

Why join the enemy ? It would be best if there were set up new councils or even call them unions then join the current existing ones as they are run by petty-bourgeois. If they let the current unions die then then the enemy will have no control over the worker in that fact. The workers should start there own councils and let the unions die. You can't change from within, you need to crush the system not reform it.

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."
-Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party


I can't believe that you can change the unions from within so i propose to indeed set up independent councils, they way it should be in my opinion.

Well, you're wrong.


I do not recall Marx mentioning anything about a Vanguard party

"Manifesto of the Communist Party" ring a bell? Or how about this quote, from the aformentioned pamphlet:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."
-Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party


But...during the socialist stage the Vanguard party will become the state, instead of all the proletarian.

No it won't...




Why do we really even need leaders in the state? Why can't all of the proletarian lead?

If the Vanguard form the state, they will not just relinquish their power. During a revolution, usually the leaders are not exactly elected. Napoleon was never "elected," although supported, he was not democratically elected, neither was Fidel.

Do you really think that Fiedel would just give up power? I support him and respect him, but...he and his party are not going to give up power.

Why would more and more people hold leadership positions? This is all ideology.

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not a party of elected officials, it is a state of all the workers. It is needed to suppress the bourgeoisie, it is a tool to help abolish capitalism and equate everyone. You cannot just say that more and more people will get more and more power, until, inevitably, everyone holds power. You should suppress those who had power in the previous society, until they have the same power as the workers. I.E turn the capitalist into workers...

Sorry if that was not well articulated, sometimes it's hard to say what, exactly, you mean.

Straw man.


^^^ According to Lenin, it's "an infantile disorder."

Actually he was referring to the "left communist" parties of the time and not left-wing communism in general.


^^^ To be fair, that's what Lenin did (not ambitious in terms of self, but ambitious in terms of revolution itself).

The Bolsheviks appointed "cadres" in the factories that weren't democratically elected. Lenin supported this.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 11, 2007 10:21 am

The healthcare, universal housing, literacy rates, education

Basic characteristics of state capitalism, not only in so-called socialist countries but also countries in Europe, especially Scandinavia, America since FDR, third wayist countries such as Libya, Egypt of the past, Baathist regimes etc. Even in Turkey, there is free health care, free education, free universities, increasing literacy rates etc. What you describe is basically social security services, the welfare state, state capitalist regime; a universal tendency of the 20th century which is now falling apart, and with it capitalism is falling apart.


equity

Now that doesn't exist in Cuba.


Most importantly, the control that the workers have over Cuban society.

That doesn't exist either. There is the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie and there is the working class, wage-slaves being exploited by the bourgeoisie.


Do you think that Castro single handedly made Cuban society what it is today?

No, I think the Cuban bourgeoisie made the Cuban society what it is today.


The revolution was carried out by many people, all of them dedicated to establishing socialism (you don't get shot at in the jungles for years without conviction). However, without the support of the workers, the revolutionary forces would have been defeated within weeks. Instead, they were victorious thanks to the support of the people. Again, you have ignored a materialist view of the world in favor of your unfounded bias.

If what you said was true, no coup could have ever taken place without the support of the "people". The revolution was carried out by nationalists who were against Batista, of whom most wasn't even Stalinists yet (although there were some Stalinists involved). There weren't any workers struggles for class demands or independent working class organizations involved. It wasn't a proletarian revolution; in fact, it wasn't a revolution, it was a coup d'etat.


No, left communists attack the achievements of the Cuban workers because it doesn't fit their puritan imagination.

Sorry kid, you don't know anything about left communism so perhaps you should try to read a bit before talking about the subject.


Not only is there a complete dearth of capitalist relations

No, there isn't. There is the working class, the wages slaves, those who produce, and there is the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie, those who exploit.


You first raised criticisms of Trotskyists, so I felt compelled to point out flaws in left communism.

Why? Did I offend you that much? Did you feel unable to answer the criticisms about Trotskyist so that you felt compelled to point out "flaws" in left communism?
No, it is not, and there are many reasons for this. First, if you knew anything about what FDR actually did, you'd know his programs were vastly different from what Cuba has done. The New Deal created jobs and funded unemployment as well as social security, but that is nothing like Cuban society. Comparing Cuba to Turkey, Egypt, Libya and other nations is ridiculous.

What I describe is NOT "social security services" or "the welfare state" or "state capitalist regime", and you demonstrate a pure ignorance of all terms as well as the reality today.

It does exist in Cuba, and you would do well to read up on the subject. Try backing up your statements, or respond to the link I gave. The FACT is that Cuban society is based upon the organization of the workers.

Bureaucratic state bougeoisie? Wage slaves? Your drivel grows more pathetic by each word. There are managers, yes, but they are fully responsive to the workers. The Cuban workers are able to judge the actions of the state officials and respond accordingly. Again, try putting forth evidence more concrete than your mere opinion.

There is no Cuban bourgeoisie, the workers own the means of production. State officials answer to the workers. Please review how Cuban society works by reading the link.

What I said is true, because the revolution was a handful of people fighting the government when it began. Why does this matter? Without the direct support of the people, they would have been crushed; Cuban workers and peasants aided them when they were at their most vulnerable. Other coups are different because they originate from the military elite, and therefore have all the support they need from the bourgeois state. In the Cuban revolution, the bourgeois state was smashed.

This is a good example of why left communism is absolutely worthless. There weren't any "independent working class organizations involved"? Read up on how the workers organized themselves during the revolution, read up on how they occupied entire industries themselves. Furthermore, the guerrillas were fighting for class demands, and the people gave them the support they needed to succeed. Ignoring reality is your forte.

I've read the opinions of left communists, so I've gotten my views on it from the horse's mouth. Are you saying your own words aren't a good representation of your own ideology?

There is a working class, and they own the means of production in Cuba. The state is controlled by the workers through democratic means. Where the hell is the exploitation? Unless you give some sort of concrete example, it's abundantly clear that you're making stuff up.

So when someone criticizes your ideology, you conclude that they must have been offended and unable to answer what you said? Infantile, indeed.

[Leo]

No, it is not, and there are many reasons for this. First, if you knew anything about what FDR actually did, you'd know his programs were vastly different from what Cuba has done. The New Deal created jobs and funded unemployment as well as social security, but that is nothing like Cuban society. Comparing Cuba to Turkey, Egypt, Libya and other nations is ridiculous.

Why? Because they are waving red flags? Wake up, kid.


What I describe is NOT "social security services" or "the welfare state" or "state capitalist regime"

That was exactly what you have described.


or respond to the link I gave.

Your link doesn't interest me, I don't care how well Cuba fits UN's human rights criterias or whatever or how democratic Cuba is. I am against both UN and democracy.


The FACT is that Cuban society is based upon the organization of the workers.

This is not true.


Bureaucratic state bougeoisie? Wage slaves?

Yes.


Your drivel grows more pathetic by each word. There are managers, yes, but they are fully responsive to the workers.

They are not, and they can not be any more responsive than any other manager on earth. There is a class difference.


There is no Cuban bourgeoisie, the workers own the means of production.

No they don't, the state owns the means of production. This is a fact.


State officials answer to the workers.

Try to answer this: why should they? Why would they? Try to think. Have you ever seen any state official answering to the workers?


What I said is true, because the revolution was a handful of people fighting the government when it began. Why does this matter? Without the direct support of the people, they would have been crushed; Cuban workers and peasants aided them when they were at their most vulnerable. Other coups are different because they originate from the military elite, and therefore have all the support they need from the bourgeois state. In the Cuban revolution, the bourgeois state was smashed.


No, it wasn't. The proletariat wasn't more involved than it was involved in Loise Napoleon's coup in France. The majority did not like the Batista regime and probably a significant part of the population did support Castro's nationalist forces, but the support an organization gets is in no way to say if it is proletarian or not. Lenin's party fit two taxis when he was going to the Zimmerwald conference, on the other hand the Republic and Democratic Parties in the US are supported by lots of people. Cuban "revolutionaries" were a military organization, they won because they used their propaganda in their organization well, their soldiers were much more determined, they had good military trainers, better techniques, and the Batista
regime was too corrupt for the bourgeoisie whereas the Castroist regime could make the capitalist exploitation work more effectively. When they came to power, they were simply bourgeois nationalists, left-nationalists at best - they "radicalized" their rhetoric when they became allies with the Russian imperialism.


There weren't any "independent working class organizations involved"?

No, there weren't. Sorry if it disappoints you.


Furthermore, the guerrillas were fighting for class demands

No, they were fighting to get into power, which was what they successfully did.


I've read the opinions of left communists, so I've gotten my views on it from the horse's mouth. Are you saying your own words aren't a good representation of your own ideology?

No, I am saying that you are not reading what I say, you are catching bits of what I say and throwing a memorized ideology out instead of a response.


There is a working class, and they own the means of production in Cuba.

There is a working class in Cuba but they don't control the means of production.


The state is controlled by the workers through democratic means.

No, the state is controlled by the privileged bourgeois-bureaucrats.


Where the hell is the exploitation?

Well, think of it this way: you are working in a state owned factory which produces shoes. You have to be there between, say, 8:00 to 18:00. You go there, your job there is to attach the bottom of the shoe to the main part. You do this with hundreds of shoes each day. You are paid for your daily work. Than the manager sends all the shoes away, they are sold in the markets. Then you go to the markets, again owned by the state, and you buy the same shoe, because you need one at that time. At the meanwhile, the state invests on the capital it has just gained from shoe sales, and makes more money and invests on it too. Think of it as a huge monopolistic company, it has got nothing to do with communism.


So when someone criticizes your ideology, you conclude that they must have been offended and unable to answer what you said?

No, when someone can't reply to what I said and tries to launch a counter-attack, that's what I think.

I like being criticized, it is an amusing challenge; one which you have been unable to provide.

Oh, and you might wanna change the quote in your sig cause Reed was a left-wing communist.

[manic expression]

First, many of your points had no weight outside of the air you used to utter them. My point: you are ignoring the realities of Cuban society in favor of your myopic imagination. To all the points where you have stated falsities with no evidence:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

There's many more. It is clear that you are clueless and refuse to look at the facts, although you would do well to change that.

Worker control of the means of production is "social security services"? Get a clue. They wave red flags, but what is most important is that your comments raise red flags about your sanity.


No, it wasn't. The proletariat wasn't more involved than it was involved in Loise Napoleon's coup in France. The majority did not like the Batista regime and probably a significant part of the population did support Castro's nationalist forces, but the support an organization gets is in no way to say if it is proletarian or not. Lenin's party fit two taxis when he was going to the Zimmerwald conference, on the other hand the Republic and Democratic Parties in the US are supported by lots of people. Cuban "revolutionaries" were a military organization, they won because they used their propaganda in their organization well, their soldiers were much more determined, they had good military trainers, better techniques, and the Batista
regime was too corrupt for the bourgeoisie whereas the Castroist regime could make the capitalist exploitation work more effectively. When they came to power, they were simply bourgeois nationalists, left-nationalists at best - they "radicalized" their rhetoric when they became allies with the Russian imperialism.

This drips with delusion. The proletariat was very involved in the revolutionary process and still is. Read the post in the History forum about this:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64254

(again, I have to force feed you the blatantly obvious)

The Cuban revolutionaries weren't really better trained or equipped than the Batista forces, the pro-Batista forces lost because the workers wanted them out and the workers wanted the revolutionaries in. It's not a coincidence that the rich fled Cuba like the plague after the revolution, it's not a coincidence that land and industry was immediately siezed and collectivization was begun.

The bottom line is that you haven't a shred of support and you're spewing slander.


No, I am saying that you are not reading what I say, you are catching bits of what I say and throwing a memorized ideology out instead of a response.

I guess that's the other thing you do when people disagree with you. What was that term again? Infantile or something?


Well, think of it this way: you are working in a state owned factory which produces shoes. You have to be there between, say, 8:00 to 18:00. You go there, your job there is to attach the bottom of the shoe to the main part. You do this with hundreds of shoes each day. You are paid for your daily work. Than the manager sends all the shoes away, they are sold in the markets. Then you go to the markets, again owned by the state, and you buy the same shoe, because you need one at that time. At the meanwhile, the state invests on the capital it has just gained from shoe sales, and makes more money and invests on it too. Think of it as a huge monopolistic company, it has got nothing to do with communism.

That's nice. Too bad it has nothing to do with how Cuba actually works. Cuban workers do not buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc...). The market in Cuba is infinitely small, pratically insignificant, and the only thing that really goes through the market process is small resturaunts.


No, when someone can't reply to what I said and tries to launch a counter-attack, that's what I think.

I love being criticized, it is an amusing challenge; one which you have been unable to provide.

Who's offered evidence? Oh, that's right, the one who isn't Leo Uilleann. It must be some challenge to debate when you don't have an argument.

[Boriznov]

Zampano - We should guide the workers in helping them organize on there selves. It's a revolution for the proletariat so they will fight for THERE freedom, not for some bureacratic 'communists'.

If leninists and council communists would learn how to work together maybe shit would get done for once.

[Leo]

Your links had nothing to do with what I had been saying. They are, in fact, trying to prove how successful the Cuban bourgeois state is: "Why Cuba's training American Doctors", "Fighting Illiteracy, Cuban-style", " UNESCO Literacy Prize Goes to Cuba", " Cuba's Preventative Care Rated High". Those were all trying to show that the Cuban regime is in fact succesful and is respected in world bourgeois system. The part about the legislative system was trying to prove how good democracy functions in Cuba. The word "worker" came up only three times, and none of them were in reference to an attempt so show that the Cuban regime was proletarian. Aside from my doubts that you haven't actually read this website, I have to say that if I was a left-liberal I might have been "impressed" but as a communist, I am not :rolleyes:


[b]Worker control of the means of production is "social security services"?

No, what I said was workers don't control the means of production in Cuba. What exists in Cuba are social security services. Is that clear? Did you understand it? Do you want me to repeat it again?


The Cuban revolutionaries weren't really better trained or equipped than the Batista forces, the pro-Batista forces lost because the workers wanted them out and the workers wanted the revolutionaries in.

No, the pro-Batista forces lost because they weren't really pro-Batista - they didn't want to die for Batista. Batista's regime was, after all, really corrupt. No one really liked it, even some elements of the bourgeoisie.


That's nice. Too bad it has nothing to do with how Cuba actually works. Cuban workers do not buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc...).

Food was given out by the state in the past, but food sales started in 2000. Since food sales were allowed in 2000, Cuba has moved up from 144th position among U.S. markets, to 50th in 2002 and 35th in 2003, importing $256.9 million worth of U.S. agricultural products.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...twp=body_middle (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_8_10/ai_114086545?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)

I would imagine that shelter is not in the market yet, although clothing probably would be in the market. Shelter is made up in the long run however, that's how it worked in state capitalist regimes; the person has to work for the state anyway, with an aggregate cut from what would be paid (something which works similarly to credit in the 'West') people are given shelter, of course workers again live in cottages and the bourgeois-bureaucrats live in palaces.

Yet don't make any mistake about it: this shows that state capitalism in Cuba is having problems, as all the Keynesian state capitalist economies in the world. Cuba wasn't socialist when the state was providing all the resources. Some of the wages given to the proletariat are be shifted to free social services, the ratio can change. This is a different economical policy, not a different economical system.

Concerning its privileges as a class, what is specific to the state bureaucracy is primarily the fact that it obtains its privileges not through revenues arising out of the individual ownership of capital, but through ‘running costs’, bonuses, and fixed forms of payment given to it according to the function its members fulfill - a form of remuneration which simply has the appearance of ‘wages’ and which is often tens or hundreds of times higher than the wages given to the working class.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Very interesting thread. What Would the Industrial Workers of the World Union do after the means of production are in their hands? I have not read anything to suggest actions of post revolution.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 11, 2007 07:16 pm
Your links had nothing to do with what I had been saying. They are, in fact, trying to prove how successful the Cuban bourgeois state is: "Why Cuba's training American Doctors", "Fighting Illiteracy, Cuban-style", " UNESCO Literacy Prize Goes to Cuba", " Cuba's Preventative Care Rated High". Those were all trying to show that the Cuban regime is in fact succesful and is respected in world bourgeois system. The part about the legislative system was trying to prove how good democracy functions in Cuba. The word "worker" came up only three times, and none of them were in reference to an attempt so show that the Cuban regime was proletarian. Aside from my doubts that you haven't actually read this website, I have to say that if I was a left-liberal I might have been "impressed" but as a communist, I am not :rolleyes:


[b]Worker control of the means of production is "social security services"?

No, what I said was workers don't control the means of production in Cuba. What exists in Cuba are social security services. Is that clear? Did you understand it? Do you want me to repeat it again?


The Cuban revolutionaries weren't really better trained or equipped than the Batista forces, the pro-Batista forces lost because the workers wanted them out and the workers wanted the revolutionaries in.

No, the pro-Batista forces lost because they weren't really pro-Batista - they didn't want to die for Batista. Batista's regime was, after all, really corrupt. No one really liked it, even some elements of the bourgeoisie.


That's nice. Too bad it has nothing to do with how Cuba actually works. Cuban workers do not buy necessities (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc...).

Food was given out by the state in the past, but food sales started in 2000. Since food sales were allowed in 2000, Cuba has moved up from 144th position among U.S. markets, to 50th in 2002 and 35th in 2003, importing $256.9 million worth of U.S. agricultural products.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...twp=body_middle (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_8_10/ai_114086545?lstpn=search_sampler&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)

I would imagine that shelter is not in the market yet, although clothing probably would be in the market. Shelter is made up in the long run however, that's how it worked in state capitalist regimes; the person has to work for the state anyway, with an aggregate cut from what would be paid (something which works similarly to credit in the 'West') people are given shelter, of course workers again live in cottages and the bourgeois-bureaucrats live in palaces.

Yet don't make any mistake about it: this shows that state capitalism in Cuba is having problems, as all the Keynesian state capitalist economies in the world. Cuba wasn't socialist when the state was providing all the resources. Some of the wages given to the proletariat are be shifted to free social services, the ratio can change. This is a different economical policy, not a different economical system.

Concerning its privileges as a class, what is specific to the state bureaucracy is primarily the fact that it obtains its privileges not through revenues arising out of the individual ownership of capital, but through ‘running costs’, bonuses, and fixed forms of payment given to it according to the function its members fulfill - a form of remuneration which simply has the appearance of ‘wages’ and which is often tens or hundreds of times higher than the wages given to the working class.
They refute your claims that there is some big bad Castro-ite class exploiting everyone. They show that the workers control the government. They show that the state is responsive to the workers and that the state is OF the workers. They show that you're wrong.

The source wasn't explicitly leftist, so it doesn't look at it through a Marxist perspective. Therefore, it didn't use "worker" because it sees workers as "the people". Again, your puritan mindset fails you.

They do control the means of production. The state owns those means and the state is of the workers. It is pretty simple, try to understand it. Claiming that they are merely "social services" is incorrect and the facts show this. But go ahead, repeat your own delusion like it justifies itself.

Really? The death squads didn't fight for Batista? Who were they fighting for? Yes, many in the military got tired of him, but that doesn't negate the fact that after the revolution, the rich ran out of Cuba like it was a burning building. You conveniently ignored that point.

Are they selling food to Cuban workers? That's the crux of the issue. If they aren't, you don't have a point.

Even if they are, it is limited and should be minimized soon. Furthermore, some privitization occured in the special period, and that is presently being rolled back. The reason for these developments was because the Cuban economy was on the brink of total collapse due to complete isolation.

Do these privitizations make it "state capitalist"? Not by a long shot, and that is where the fantastical imaginations of left communists come into play.

State officials don't really live better than most of the Cuban people. There is some corruption, but that is not a systemic problem and it can be fixed.

[Leo]

They refute your claims that there is some big bad Castro-ite class exploiting everyone.

They don't refute it more than any other democratic bourgeois nationalist trying to refute the existence of classes.


They show that the workers control the government.

No, they are trying to show that the "people", the bourgeoisie and the workers control the government, like any other bourgeois propaganda. It doesn't work. You might not care about your fellow workers in Cuba, you might not be a proletarian yourself, but I am not going to deny the existence of fellow exploited workers in Cuba because of some "democratic" bourgeois propaganda.


The source wasn't explicitly leftist, so it doesn't look at it through a Marxist perspective. Therefore, it didn't use "worker" because it sees workers as "the people".

No, it sees the "people" as the "people", the population of the country. It was as leftist and Marxist as Cuba itself. Most of the references were given to Cuba's official paper.


They do control the means of production. The state owns those means and the state is of the workers.

I bet you really worked a lot to reach that conclusion. :rolleyes: The state is not of the workers because the workers there did not make a revolution. The state is of Castro and the bureaucratic elite around him. Sigh, think of it a little bit kid, even my ma who is a hardcore Stalinist is a little worried about Castro and his team sitting in high governmental posts for more than fifty years.


the rich ran out of Cuba like it was a burning building. You conveniently ignored that point.

Some of them did run, but not all of them. The ones who supported Batista, the most corrupt ones ran. If you think that the entire bourgeoisie would run away even in an actual proletarian revolution, you are delusional.


Are they selling food to Cuban workers? That's the crux of the issue. If they aren't, you don't have a point.

I gave you the link.


Even if they are, it is limited and should be minimized soon.

No, it is not limited and it is increasing.


Do these privitizations make it "state capitalist"?

Well, no, actually they show that the state capitalist regime can't hold everything together.


State officials don't really live better than most of the Cuban people.

I'm sorry, but that is delusional too.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 11, 2007 09:59 pm

They refute your claims that there is some big bad Castro-ite class exploiting everyone.

They don't refute it more than any other democratic bourgeois nationalist trying to refute the existence of classes.


They show that the workers control the government.

No, they are trying to show that the "people", the bourgeoisie and the workers control the government, like any other bourgeois propaganda. It doesn't work. You might not care about your fellow workers in Cuba, you might not be a proletarian yourself, but I am not going to deny the existence of fellow exploited workers in Cuba because of some "democratic" bourgeois propaganda.


The source wasn't explicitly leftist, so it doesn't look at it through a Marxist perspective. Therefore, it didn't use "worker" because it sees workers as "the people".

No, it sees the "people" as the "people", the population of the country. It was as leftist and Marxist as Cuba itself. Most of the references were given to Cuba's official paper.


They do control the means of production. The state owns those means and the state is of the workers.

I bet you really worked a lot to reach that conclusion. :rolleyes: The state is not of the workers because the workers there did not make a revolution. The state is of Castro and the bureaucratic elite around him. Sigh, think of it a little bit kid, even my ma who is a hardcore Stalinist is a little worried about Castro and his team sitting in high governmental posts for more than fifty years.


the rich ran out of Cuba like it was a burning building. You conveniently ignored that point.

Some of them did run, but not all of them. The ones who supported Batista, the most corrupt ones ran. If you think that the entire bourgeoisie would run away even in an actual proletarian revolution, you are delusional.


Are they selling food to Cuban workers? That's the crux of the issue. If they aren't, you don't have a point.

I gave you the link.


Even if they are, it is limited and should be minimized soon.

No, it is not limited and it is increasing.


Do these privitizations make it "state capitalist"?

Well, no, actually they show that the state capitalist regime can't hold everything together.


State officials don't really live better than most of the Cuban people.

I'm sorry, but that is delusional too.
What "democratic bourgeois nationalist" rhetoric did you see? It stated facts about the Cuban system. That reaction is completely unrelated to what it actually is (you went as far as to claim that "bourgeois" commentators said that Cuba is classless? Are you insane?).

Again, you're injecting your delusion into what you read. The link showed that it costs no money to run for office, officials are extremely responsive to the workers, the workers elect officials in a direct manner and more. Wait, does that mean that left communists oppose elections, too? Do they oppose officials? Furthermore, I do care about my fellow workers of Cuba, and that is why I defend their achievements while you disparage them.

Oh yes, the bourgeoisie is doing everything they can to defend Cuba... :lol: Are you even listening to yourself?

It's not a hard conclusion to work on, you just have to look at reality. The workers did not make the revolution? Look at the link to the post I gave you, it shows that the workers DID make the revolution in Cuba. Without the support of the workers, the revolution could never have made it far. Without the support of the workers, the Bay of Pigs invasion would have succeeded. Without the support of the workers, the revolutionary government would have crashed. Again, you ignore this and refuse to face the facts.

Castro has been in power because the workers support him. Why shouldn't they?

What are you talking about? A huge amount of the rich sector of the population left after the revolution. Now you're just denying history.

The link says nothing about Cubans buying food. Try again.

It is not increasing by all accounts.

You haven't shown that it is state-capitalist in the first place, so your point is as ignorant as it is unfounded.

Try to find evidence of Castro's "extravagant lifestyle". You won't, because you can't.

[Leo]

What "democratic bourgeois nationalist" rhetoric did you see?

"The people decides", "free elections", "it's all democratic", "Cuba is great" etc. etc. I hear the exact same things about the place I live in everyday, I know that its bullshit.


The link showed that it costs no money to run for office, officials are extremely responsive to the workers, the workers elect officials in a direct manner and more.

No it didn't say anything about the workers. It said things about how the people manages things which is, as I said, something I hear on a daily basis from the government in the place I live in also.


The workers did not make the revolution? Look at the link to the post I gave you, it shows that the workers DID make the revolution in Cuba.

Didn't it just stated facts about the Cuban system?


Without the support of the workers, the Bay of Pigs invasion would have succeeded. Without the support of the workers, the revolutionary government would have crashed. Again, you ignore this and refuse to face the facts.


And without the support of the workers, Lois Napoleon would be crushed also; do you regard his coup as a proletarian revolution? Do you regard Hitler coming into power as a proletarian revolution because he got the majority of the votes from the "people" in a more or less "fair" bourgeois election?


Castro has been in power because the workers support him.

And that's what the parrots of every bourgeois regime says: oh he is our king because the people love him! Yeah, right.


The link says nothing about Cubans buying food. Try again.

You are supposed to have a brain, can you try using it? It says that food is sold in the Cuban market, why is it sold in the Cuban market if no one buys it?


It is not increasing by all accounts.

Read it again.


You haven't shown that it is state-capitalist in the first place

You are just refusing to see it. Believe in what you want.


Try to find evidence of Castro's "extravagant lifestyle". You won't, because you can't.

The man lives in a palace. He came from a bourgeois background. I hope you won't claim that Castro is living just like any other worker in Cuba, no, he is living like the bureacrats.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:15 pm
Why is the Vanguard even needed? Why can't all the workers just rise up to seize power?
Because we are not robots.

Working people come in many different flavours. Some are more intelligent, some are lazier, some are more submissive, some are less prejudiced, etc. In the end, some workers are more willing to struggle than others. Those workers are our class' vanguard - so it is not the issue if a vanguard is needed. There is a vanguard.

Whether this vanguard should, or even can, get organised in a party - one party - the party - that's a different question.

(In practice, of course, it will get organised in a dozen different parties and non-parties - basically for the same reason it is a vanguard: workers are different.)


After the revolution, will the Vanguard Party be the dictators (so to speak) as in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat"?

That is Blanqui's proposition. As we see, it does not work.


If not, I don't see the Vanguard stepping down that easily. Russia being a prime example.

The Russian workers' vanguard stepped down quite easily. The problem was to whom it did step down (a monsterous bureaucracy, that is).

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Zampano - We should guide the workers in helping them organize on there selves. It's a revolution for the proletariat so they will fight for THERE freedom, not for some bureacratic 'communists'.

If leninists and council communists would learn how to work together maybe shit would get done for once.

Yeah, that's the job of the vanguard...

And that's not even a "Leninist" principle; it's a Marxist one, as I showed by that Manifesto quote.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:02 pm
Zampano - We should guide the workers in helping them organize on there selves.
"We" who, pale-face?


It's a revolution for the proletariat so they will fight for THERE freedom, not for some bureacratic 'communists'.

Which means there will be no "we" helping us to organise ourselves.


If leninists and council communists would learn how to work together maybe shit would get done for once.

Which, of course, means, if Leninists and Council Communists should lay down their principles and engage in acritical practicism. This, of course, is not how it works.

Luís Henrique

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 11, 2007 10:37 pm

What "democratic bourgeois nationalist" rhetoric did you see?

"The people decides", "free elections", "it's all democratic", "Cuba is great" etc. etc. I hear the exact same things about the place I live in everyday, I know that its bullshit.


The link showed that it costs no money to run for office, officials are extremely responsive to the workers, the workers elect officials in a direct manner and more.

No it didn't say anything about the workers. It said things about how the people manages things which is, as I said, something I hear on a daily basis from the government in the place I live in also.


The workers did not make the revolution? Look at the link to the post I gave you, it shows that the workers DID make the revolution in Cuba.

Didn't it just stated facts about the Cuban system?


Without the support of the workers, the Bay of Pigs invasion would have succeeded. Without the support of the workers, the revolutionary government would have crashed. Again, you ignore this and refuse to face the facts.


And without the support of the workers, Lois Napoleon would be crushed also; do you regard his coup as a proletarian revolution? Do you regard Hitler coming into power as a proletarian revolution because he got the majority of the votes from the "people" in a more or less "fair" bourgeois election?


Castro has been in power because the workers support him.

And that's what the parrots of every bourgeois regime says: oh he is our king because the people love him! Yeah, right.


The link says nothing about Cubans buying food. Try again.

You are supposed to have a brain, can you try using it? It says that food is sold in the Cuban market, why is it sold in the Cuban market if no one buys it?


It is not increasing by all accounts.

Read it again.


You haven't shown that it is state-capitalist in the first place

You are just refusing to see it. Believe in what you want.


Try to find evidence of Castro's "extravagant lifestyle". You won't, because you can't.

The man lives in a palace. He came from a bourgeois background. I hope you won't claim that Castro is living just like any other worker in Cuba, no, he is living like the bureacrats.
Post an actual example, like from the website. I know its tough to actually comprehend stuff for you, but you can try.

It stated facts about the Cuban system of government. What is that system like? It is directly controlled by the Cuban people. Cuban people = the workers. It's not that hard.

So statements from your country's government have any relevance to the reality of Cuba? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.... :rolleyes:

No, it didn't. Read it.

Ah yes, here comes the inevitable comparison to Napoleon and (wait for it) Adolf Hitler. I hope you understand how ridiculous you sound right now. If you cannot see the epic differences between the Cuban revolutionaries and Napoleon/Hitler, you are simply lost. Let's start: the Cuban revolutionaries didn't come to power through a "'fair' bourgeois election", they established socialism through revolutionary means. You couldn't even notice that difference. Secondly, the Cuban revolutionaries have established worker control. Those are just a few out of many. I can't believe you would be thick enough to make that point.

Do bourgeois leaders create worker control? No. Do they smash bourgeois governments thanks to the support of the workers? No. Do they collectivize industry and land? No. Do you have a point? No.

You are supposed to have a copy/paste feature, can you try using it? Please specify which part of the link you're talking about.

I did read it, and it is talking about food EXPORTS.

You are refusing to make a coherent argument. What is your evidence? Oh yeah, Castro is mean and Hitler-like. Give me a break.

Castro lives in a palace? You are simply making outrageous statements without any evidence. I explicitly asked you for real concrete evidence, please provide some. If his palace exists, it shouldn't be hard to find some evidence of this (or is his palace secretly underground and guarded by trolls, too?). Please, Leo, find us a picture of this magestic palace that he supposedly lives in. Until you come up with a shred of support, you have absolutely nothing (except for your own delusional slander).

[Leo]

It stated facts about the Cuban system of government. What is that system like? It is directly controlled by the Cuban people.

Yeah, and the American system is directly controlled by the American people :rolleyes:

Sigh, that's just what they say kid, it isn't true. Democracy, everywhere means the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


I did read it, and it is talking about food EXPORTS.

It is talking about imports, you really are unable to read.

Anyway, you proved too... parrot-like to talk to. It is also sad that you think bureaucrats will stay in cottages just like the working class, it demonstrates that you haven't understood anything about the world, not surprising.

You wanted images, here's some: Palacio de Convenciones:

"The Havana International Conference Center Complex is Cuba's leading company in the industry. The Center is an institution that specializes in organizing, promoting and hosting a wide variety of special events. Its sprawling 60,000 sq.m. premises are located in a residential district of Cuba's capital city, only five minute away from downtown Havana. Pabexpo, its fairgrounds, contains five air-conditioned, interconnected exhibition halls. The Complex offers accommodations at the Palco Hotel, a modern three-star facility. The Conference Center Complex provides catering services at the Bucán, El Rancho and El Palenque restaurants. In 1998, Club Habana, a top-notch social and sports center, was added to the complex facilities."

http://www.therealcuba.com/PalaciodeconvencionesA.JPG

http://www.therealcuba.com/Palaciodeconvenciones3.jpg

http://www.therealcuba.com/Palaciodeconvenciones4.jpg

Castro's Residence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/122000/03/castro_residence.jpg

http://www.therealcuba.com/Casadecastro6.jpg

Sigh, did you actually think that someone from the upper class who has the chance to be privileged would not be privileged?

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+April 12, 2007 12:08 am--> (Luís Henrique @ April 12, 2007 12:08 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 07:02 pm
Zampano - We should guide the workers in helping them organize on there selves.
"We" who, pale-face?


It's a revolution for the proletariat so they will fight for THERE freedom, not for some bureacratic 'communists'.

Which means there will be no "we" helping us to organise ourselves.


If leninists and council communists would learn how to work together maybe shit would get done for once.

Which, of course, means, if Leninists and Council Communists should lay down their principles and engage in acritical practicism. This, of course, is not how it works.

Luís Henrique [/b]
The communists should show them how to organize and let them do it, not take charge by making a vanguard party

[tolstoyevski]

I wonder if does Antonio Negri's theories have something to do with council communism?
In short, what is the relationship between autonomist marxists and council communists?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 12, 2007 10:26 am

It stated facts about the Cuban system of government. What is that system like? It is directly controlled by the Cuban people.

Yeah, and the American system is directly controlled by the American people :rolleyes:

Sigh, that's just what they say kid, it isn't true. Democracy, everywhere means the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


I did read it, and it is talking about food EXPORTS.

It is talking about imports, you really are unable to read.

Anyway, you proved too... parrot-like to talk to. It is also sad that you think bureaucrats will stay in cottages just like the working class, it demonstrates that you haven't understood anything about the world, not surprising.

You wanted images, here's some: Palacio de Convenciones:

"The Havana International Conference Center Complex is Cuba's leading company in the industry. The Center is an institution that specializes in organizing, promoting and hosting a wide variety of special events. Its sprawling 60,000 sq.m. premises are located in a residential district of Cuba's capital city, only five minute away from downtown Havana. Pabexpo, its fairgrounds, contains five air-conditioned, interconnected exhibition halls. The Complex offers accommodations at the Palco Hotel, a modern three-star facility. The Conference Center Complex provides catering services at the Bucán, El Rancho and El Palenque restaurants. In 1998, Club Habana, a top-notch social and sports center, was added to the complex facilities."

http://www.therealcuba.com/PalaciodeconvencionesA.JPG

http://www.therealcuba.com/Palaciodeconvenciones3.jpg

http://www.therealcuba.com/Palaciodeconvenciones4.jpg

Castro's Residence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/122000/03/castro_residence.jpg

http://www.therealcuba.com/Casadecastro6.jpg

Sigh, did you actually think that someone from the upper class who has the chance to be privileged would not be privileged?
Here's the funny part: Cuba actually IS directly controlled by the workers. Between a source with citations and support and Leo Uilleann (who has no support or evidence), I'll take the former. Sorry, but the facts matter.

It was talking about exports from the US to Cuba. So was it talking about a domestic market? No, so either you were lying or too stupid to read your own link.

:lol:

FFS, it's a CONVENTION CENTER. Hardly a personal palace. I was expecting more than pictures from a building and lines to it. There is nothing to suggest that Castro lives there at all, and there is nothing to suggest that there is ANYTHING behind what you're saying. Again, either you haven't a shred of support, and I doubt you have a shred of sanity.

[Leo]

FFS, it's a CONVENTION CENTER. Hardly a personal palace. I was expecting more than pictures from a building and lines to it.

The one below is a personal palace.

Those pictures:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/122000/03/castro_residence.jpg

http://www.therealcuba.com/Casadecastro6.jpg


It was talking about exports from the US to Cuba.

Yes.


So was it talking about a domestic market? No, so either you were lying or too stupid to read your own link.

Your lack of intelligence amazes me.

From the link:


Cuba's purchases of American agricultural products doubled last year


Cuba imported $256.9 million worth of U.S. agricultural products in 2003.


Since food sales were allowed in 2000, Cuba has moved up from 144th position among U.S. markets, to 50th in 2002 and 35th last year


The council said Cuban purchases, begun in late 2001, amounted to $400 million through 2003. Cuba pays cash for purchases from the United States, with some financing from non-US, banks.

Now, here's the test. We will understand once and for all if you know how to read or not.

Now, I'll make this as simple as possible.

A) Cuba purchases food from the US.

B) Food sales are allowed in Cuba.

Now, connect A to B. What do you think they are doing with the agricultural products they buy? They sell them in the market.

If you don't understand this, I will conclude that you literally are an ape sitting behind the computer and randomly typing the posts.

[Leo]

I am not saying that Fidel Castro is the richest man on Earth. I would imagine that he would have less privilege than other bourgeois leaders. Yet still, the apartment building I live in, along with twenty other families, probably takes less space on the ground than his pool. I don't think that the Cuban working class has private pools, tennis courts, basketball courts nor do I think that the Cuban working class lives in big houses with yards. I don't think any of the people in Cuba has more than one house. This is a demonstration of class differences, different classes exist in Cuba, the ruling class in Cuba is not the proletariat; it is the bourgeoisie. Of course the significant issue is the economic one; state capital is still capital, nationalization does not abolish capitalism.

I mean, try comparing it with the early days of the October Revolution. When, in the evening of 24 October 1917, Lenin left his flat for the Smolny Institute to participate in the revolutionary takeover, he took a tram and asked the conductress if there was any fighting going on in the center that day. In the years after the October Revolution, Lenin was mostly driving around in a car only with his faithful driver and bodyguard Gil; a couple of times they were shot at, stopped by the police and arrested (the policemen did not recognize Lenin), once, after visiting a school in suburbs, even robbed of the car and their guns by bandits posing as police, and then compelled to walk to the nearest police station. When, on 30 August 1918, Lenin was shot, this occurred while he got in a conversation with a couple of complaining women in front of a factory he just visited; the bleeding Lenin was driven by Gil to Kremlin, were there were no doctors, so his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya suggested someone should run out to the nearest grocer’s shop for a lemon... The standard meal in the Kremlin kantina in 1918 was buckwheat porridge and thin vegetable soup.

Which situation seems more revolutionary?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I know Lenin got shot and stopped by police (I believe en route to a party congress), but robbed and humiliated afterwards??? :huh:



Honestly, in the future, I hope that future revolutionary leaders don't live as low as Lenin did (with regards to food and insecurity), because that would be a signal of how world standards of living decreased dramatically. :(



BTW, was the meal porridge and soup? I thought Lenin usually had tea, Russian "black" bread (http://www.yogurtland.com/images/russianBlackBread/russianBlackBread.jpg), butter and cheese (got this from a history book).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:41 pm
I wonder if does Antonio Negri's theories have something to do with council communism?
In short, what is the relationship between autonomist marxists and council communists?
Negri is merely a modern-day Kautskyite, especially with his "Empire" stuff which amounts to little more than Ultra-Imperialism 2.0.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 12, 2007 06:28 pm

FFS, it's a CONVENTION CENTER. Hardly a personal palace. I was expecting more than pictures from a building and lines to it.

The one below is a personal palace.

Those pictures:


It was talking about exports from the US to Cuba.

Yes.


So was it talking about a domestic market? No, so either you were lying or too stupid to read your own link.

Your lack of intelligence amazes me.

From the link:


Cuba's purchases of American agricultural products doubled last year


Cuba imported $256.9 million worth of U.S. agricultural products in 2003.


Since food sales were allowed in 2000, Cuba has moved up from 144th position among U.S. markets, to 50th in 2002 and 35th last year


The council said Cuban purchases, begun in late 2001, amounted to $400 million through 2003. Cuba pays cash for purchases from the United States, with some financing from non-US, banks.

Now, here's the test. We will understand once and for all if you know how to read or not.

Now, I'll make this as simple as possible.

A) Cuba purchases food from the US.

B) Food sales are allowed in Cuba.

Now, connect A to B. What do you think they are doing with the agricultural products they buy? They sell them in the market.

If you don't understand this, I will conclude that you literally are an ape sitting behind the computer and randomly typing the posts.
A picture of a building an a few lines pointing to them doesn't exactly constitute damning evidence. If your best support are two lines pointing to a building, you're in trouble. What is there to conclude that Castro lives there? Nothing, which basically sums up your argument.

Since food sales were allowed? Kind of like this?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...p.ap/index.html (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/12/congressrdp.ap/index.html)

"The House voted Wednesday to let Cuba buy U.S. food for the first time in four decades under legislation that supporters said could prove to be a breakthrough in relations with Fidel Castro's government."

Oh, right, like THOSE kinds of sales (aka not a domestic market).

What were you saying?

[Leo]

A picture of a building an a few lines pointing to them doesn't exactly constitute damning evidence. If your best support are two lines pointing to a building, you're in trouble. What is there to conclude that Castro lives there?

Look at the website monkey-boy, it says "Castro's residence".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/12200...dbye_cuba.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/122000/03/goodbye_cuba.shtml)

From CompañeroDeLibertad's link:


Fidel and Dalia's compound in western Havana is equipped with one outdoor
tennis and basketball court. It is ringed with pine trees that block off outside views, and surrounded by electronic fences that detect intruders.


Since food sales were allowed? Kind of like this? Oh, right, like THOSE kinds of sales (aka not a domestic market).

What were you saying?

I'm going over this for the last time monkey-boy. Food sales were allowed in Cuba. If food sales are allowed in Cuba, this means that food is sold in the Cuban domestic market. Does your tiny brain understand this or should I repeat it again?


BTW, was the meal porridge and soup? I thought Lenin usually had tea, Russian "black" bread, butter and cheese (got this from a history book).

Well, tea, bread, butter and cheese sound more like breakfast whereas soup is a lunch or dinner thing. Porridge sort of works for both, I guess. I remember reading a story about Dzerzhinsky in which every time someone brought him food, he asked if everyone had as much.

By the way, Hammer, are you a Bordigist?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 11:07 am

A picture of a building an a few lines pointing to them doesn't exactly constitute damning evidence. If your best support are two lines pointing to a building, you're in trouble. What is there to conclude that Castro lives there?

Look at the website monkey-boy, it says "Castro's residence".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/12200...dbye_cuba.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/clipper/122000/03/goodbye_cuba.shtml)

From CompañeroDeLibertad's link:


Fidel and Dalia's compound in western Havana is equipped with one outdoor
tennis and basketball court. It is ringed with pine trees that block off outside views, and surrounded by electronic fences that detect intruders.


Since food sales were allowed? Kind of like this? Oh, right, like THOSE kinds of sales (aka not a domestic market).

What were you saying?

I'm going over this for the last time monkey-boy. Food sales were allowed in Cuba. If food sales are allowed in Cuba, this means that food is sold in the Cuban domestic market. Does your tiny brain understand this or should I repeat it again?


BTW, was the meal porridge and soup? I thought Lenin usually had tea, Russian "black" bread, butter and cheese (got this from a history book).

Well, tea, bread, butter and cheese sound more like breakfast whereas soup is a lunch or dinner thing. Porridge sort of works for both, I guess. I remember reading a story about Dzerzhinsky in which every time someone brought him food, he asked if everyone had as much.

By the way, Hammer, are you a Bordigist?
CDL's link was from a RW source, but that didn't stop you from believing reactionaries. The picture was from an article about SAILING. You really are pathetic.

The food sales that were allowed were exports from the US to Cuba, that is not a domestic market. Look at my link, it shows this conclusively. Your own link never states that food sales were allowed IN Cuba, only that "food sales were allowed". Sorry.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I asked this question earlier but the thread got stuck on Castro/Cuba. What Would the Industrial Workers of the World Union do after the means of production are in their hands? I have not read anything to suggest actions when the new society begins. Will the union keep on doing what it has been doing with the different departments? Will Time Labor Vouchers be implemented?

[Leo]

CDL's link was from a RW source, but that didn't stop you from believing reactionaries.

Oh my god monkey-boy, how more stupid can you be? He posted it to prove that Castro did not have many privileges.


The picture was from an article about SAILING.

Yeah, because it is about sailing, they must have put another picture and called it Castro's residence.

You are hopeless monkey-boy.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 05:21 pm

CDL's link was from a RW source, but that didn't stop you from believing reactionaries.

Oh my god monkey-boy, how more stupid can you be? He posted it to prove that Castro did not have many privileges.


The picture was from an article about SAILING.

Yeah, because it is about sailing, they must have put another picture and called it Castro's residence.

You are hopeless monkey-boy.
Unfortunately for you, insipid insults don't equal effective arguments. Go ahead, insult me again, but remember that you're missing something: an actual point.

He posted it to show that Castro did not have many priveleges, and that it did. However, you, in your infinite ignorance, tried to use it to show that he did have significant priveleges; since you're an ultra-left puritan, an alarm system and pine trees cited by a RW source gets blown out of proportion by your insane conclusions. Do you want to accuse Castro of having too many pine trees? A fence? Real damning stuff there, and this is ignoring the fact that it is a reactionary source. Ultimately, what's your argument and what's your support? Nothing.

It's about sailing, making the article both irrelevant and beyond suspect. Show us a respectable source and maybe you'll deserve some yourself.

The best you can do, it seems, is call me "monkey-boy". What did Lenin say about left communism again? Infantile?

[Leo]

Unfortunately for you, insipid insults don't equal effective arguments.

You don't say monkey-boy, that was what you have been doing from the beginning of the debate. Besides I am not actually trying to insult you, I do really mean what I say. I actually think that you are a monkey, this is not an insult.


Do you want to accuse Castro of having too many pine trees? A fence?

Well, they do show something, yet I'll just focus on the basketball and tennis courts, the pools and the other houses he still has or had in the past. Those are things that a proletarian can never have in his home. I don't have things like that. I don't know, do you have a private basketball and tennis court? Do you have a pool? Will you have a house that big? How many houses do you have? If you don't have any of those, why are you defending someone does have them?

If you can manage to answer all those questions, I might reconsider my conclusion about you being a monkey.


Real damning stuff there, and this is ignoring the fact that it is a reactionary source.

All bourgeois sources are reactionary.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 05:40 pm

Unfortunately for you, insipid insults don't equal effective arguments.

You don't say monkey-boy, that was what you have been doing from the beginning of the debate. Besides I am not actually trying to insult you, I do really mean what I say. I actually think that you are a monkey, this is not an insult.


Do you want to accuse Castro of having too many pine trees? A fence?

Well, they do show something, yet I'll just focus on the basketball and tennis courts, the pools and the other houses he still has or had in the past. Those are things that a proletarian can never have in his home. I don't have things like that. I don't know, do you have a private basketball and tennis court? Do you have a pool? Will you have a house that big? How many houses do you have? If you don't have any of those, why are you defending someone does have them?

If you can manage to answer all those questions, I might reconsider my conclusion about you being a monkey.


Real damning stuff there, and this is ignoring the fact that it is a reactionary source.

All bourgeois sources are reactionary.
I called you stupid because you made stupid conclusions. Saying that there was a market in food in Cuba was stupid, among other things. Deal with it. You, on the other hand, are making stupid insults that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. "Infantile" describes it well.

Are you saying that Cubans can't go to basketball and tennis courts? Are you saying that there are no pools in Cuba? Unless Cubans are deprived of basketball, tennis, pools, shelter, "simple" furniture, there is really nothing to discuss here. Yes, he has a big-screen television according to this source (which is biased), but that seems to be the only significant thing.

As to my holdings, me and my neighbors used to play basketball together on a regular basis, sometimes on private places (just put up a hoop and there you go), sometimes in public parks. Pools are public, so that's where I went for that. The house's size is not mentioned in the article, and your article on sailing is worthless, so you're again jumping to unjustifiable conclusions.

Fidel Castro and wife Dalia live in a two-house complex in western Havana. The
living room of the main house is described by visitors as furnished with simple
wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts.

The only luxury visible to visitors, said Fuentes, is a big-screen television that
Castro uses to satisfy his interest in foreign news reports and videos secretly
recorded by Cuba's intelligence services.

Read that, then get back to me.

[Leo]

I called you stupid because you made stupid conclusions. Saying that there was a market in food in Cuba was stupid, among other things.

But it is real. I am calling you a monkey because judging from your posts it is more possible for you to be a monkey randomly typing your posts. You haven't made any sense nor have you actually addressed any point since the beginning of the discussion.


Are you saying that Cubans can't go to basketball and tennis courts?

No, I am saying that Cuban workers don't own private basketball courts in their homes.


Are you saying that there are no pools in Cuba?

No, I am saying that Cuban workers own private pools.

Nor do they have a big-screen televisions. Nor do they have multiple houses. Nor do they have two-house complexes.


As to my holdings, me and my neighbors used to play basketball together on a regular basis, sometimes on private places (just put up a hoop and there you go), sometimes in public parks. Pools are public, so that's where I went for that.

It seems that you have to learn the difference between private basketball courts and private pools and public basketballs, putting up hoops and public pools. Private ones are exclusive for the person. In a private pool it is only you who swims, you don't swim with fifty other people. The water is clean, usually regularly cleaned as if you can own a pool, you can own to hire a worker to clean the pool. In a private basketball court, it is only the people who you want to play with who plays. You don't wait for others to stop playing, you can't play for a long time if others are waiting in the line. As for the hoop, if you put it indoors (and if you live in an apartment, you have to put it indoors) you can't really play, you can mess around but it isn't basketball. You can't even use a real ball, you have to use something small. If you put a big one outdoors, you can use a real ball, but you can play with two - three people max. and you can shoot but you usually don't have enough space to make a real match as it is not a real court.

[RNK]

Nor do they have two-house complexes.

Also known as a duplex. I live in a six-plex. Does that mean I'm 3 times better off than Fidel?

[Leo]

I live in a six-plex.

All by yourself?

[Janus]

In short, what is the relationship between autonomist marxists and council communists?
They're both of the Left Communist tendency just with different origins.

[Leo]

This is not true, I think. Autonomism did not come from the left communist tradition although council communism came from the German communist left.

Autonomism is rather a general name given to all sorts of anarcho-marxist, libertarian-marxist and other tendencies trying to unite marxism and anarchism which doesn't have any definite political positions. One autonomist may defend the Zapatistas or national liberation, the other may not. The same thing applies for unions, parlimentarianism etc.

[tolstoyevski]

Hmm.. Thanks..

Second question:
what is the left-communist approach to the national liberation wars?
to make it more concrete, what do they think about the independence war of turkey, for example? Or the kurdish liberation movement which is as old as the turkish republic? Do they see them as anti-imperialist wars or any different comments?

[Leo]

what is the left-communist approach to the national liberation wars?

Left communists see the national liberation wars as anti-working class.


to make it more concrete, what do they think about the independence war of turkey, for example? Or the kurdish liberation movement which is as old as the turkish republic? Do they see them as anti-imperialist wars or any different comments?

Left communists see those wars as wars of the bourgeoisie and against the interests of the working class. We don't those wars as anti-imperialist as we think that imperialism is a world epoch and only internationalist proletarian struggle against capitalism can be anti-imperialist, not nationalist wars of the bourgeoisie.

[tolstoyevski]

Hmm.. I see..
So you disagree with Marx and Engels on the national question:

<<First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, with its incessant and heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national autonomy and self-determination. It is not in the least a contradiction that the international workers&#39; party strives for the creation of the Polish nation. On the contrary; only after Poland has won its independence again, only after it is able to govern itself again as a free people, only then can its inner development begin again and can it cooperate as an independent force in the social transformation of Europe. As long as the independent life of a nation is suppressed by a foreign conqueror it inevitably directs all its strength, all its efforts and all its energy against the external enemy; during this time, therefore, its inner life remains paralysed; it is incapable of working for social emancipation. Ireland, and Russia under Mongol rule, provide striking proof of this.>> (For Poland, by Marx)

But I think left-communists will say that, Marx and Engels didn&#39;t know what imperialism was for they lived in the epoch of free market and capitalism.
Am I right?

[Leo]

So you disagree with Marx and Engels on the national question... But I think left-communists will say that, Marx and Engels didn&#39;t know what imperialism was for they lived in the epoch of free market and capitalism.
Am I right?

Sort of... When left communists look at capitalism today, we see a decadent political system. Capitalism in its ascendant period, the period in which Marx lived in, was still capable of developing productive forces, or in other words expanding the capitalist mode of production, expanding the capitalist market. When capital reached the physical limit of its expansion, when the capitalist market became the world market and when the expansion of the capitalist mode of production stopped as it had expanded in the entire world (early 1900s), this meant that capitalism was in serious trouble. As a system which depended on expansion, when it had expanded to the whole world, the value started decreasing, underconsumption happened. Capital needed to destroy the productive forces in order to stabilize the economy. With the decadence of capitalism came the epoch of imperialism. Capital needed imperialist war, not for gains or profits but for the direct destruction of the productive forces. After the destruction came the reconstruction, after the reconstruction came the economic crisis, after the crisis came another imperialist war. In decadent capitalism, support for national liberation wars meant support for the world bourgeoisie and support for workers killing fellow workers and being killed by fellow workers.

Marx had supported the Polish national liberation in ascendant capitalism. Less than fifty years later, all of the Polish Marxists, with their leading figure, Rosa Luxemburg, were completely against Polish national liberation because they did not want to see another capitalist state in Poland, they wanted to see the dictatorship of the proletariat. The theory of decadence itself originated from Rosa Luxemburg. She applied the Marxist method of looking at the system.

Other communists from "backward" places also opposed national liberation and joining forces with the so-called "progressive" bourgeoisie. In Iran, there was a strong wing that was called "pure communists" who were opposed to all nationalisms and they were opposed to the "revolutionary nationalist" section in the communist party. In China, almost the entire membership of the communist party were opposed to an alliance with the "progressive" nationalist bourgeoisie which crushed the workers uprising in 1927 and they wanted to struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Turkey, a left-wing developed in the party, opposed to all sorts of nationalisms and all bourgeois fractions, and this became the majority of the party and had the party leadership briefly after the death of Mustafa Suphi until the third congress in which Şefik Hüsnü was brought to the leading position.

Marx had also stated that Germany should invade Russia in 1850ies. Russia was considered to be a bastion of reaction at that time. In 1900s things at changed, now Russia was one of the countries in which the revolutionary movement was the strongest. When the World War 1 broke out in 1914, actual revolutionaries did not defend German imperialism against the Russian one.

Now regardless of whether national liberation wars should be defended in ascending capitalism (which is in itself a very debatable topic), it was clear that they were anti-working class in decadent capitalism. National liberation wars brought nothing to the proletariat in the 20th century except death and pain. Capital was already not capable of developing productive forces anymore so there was no "progress" brought about by those wars. In decadent capitalism, the bourgeoisie is not capable of bringing a solution to any problem the proletariat experiences. The national bourgeois fraction leading the national liberation war is not an exception. The solution to the problems of the proletariat is international unity around class interests, class struggle and world communist revolution.

[tolstoyevski]

Comrade Leo Uilleann says:

Capitalism in its ascendant period, the period in which Marx lived in, was still capable of developing productive forces, or in other words expanding the capitalist mode of production, expanding the capitalist market.

Marx-Engels said in Communist Manifesto (1848):

And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

Let&#39;s see again, For Poland, Marx:

historic right to national autonomy and self-determination.

Do the left communists think that all of the nations are living in equally same conditions under the imperialism? Or do they attribute any importance to the national rights, by considering the uneven development law, being aware of some nations don&#39;t even have the right of speaking their mother tongue? For example, how do the left communists look to the conditions of English workers in England and Kurdish workers, who don&#39;t have any rights including education in their own language, living in Turkey? (yea I know, that nationalism can lead to an imperialistic cooperation as in the case of Barzani)

Being aware of the bourgeois essence of this problem, I also think that this "national rights demand" can be used against imperialism which insists on its market domination and therefore its culture and language:

Marx to Engels, about Lafargue (1866):

I went on to suggest that by his [Lafargue&#39;s] denial of nationalities he seemed quite unconsciously to imply their absorption by the model French nation.

The question is, what is the communist attitude towards these kinds of movements? Are we going to mark them as the wars between imperialists or capitalists and deny or condemn them? In the case of Turkey, the guerilla movement (which is one of the biggest in the world and never never mentioned in Negri&#39;s books because of his ignorance) was neihter an imperialist nor a bourgeois movement, but against a bourgeois army which is supported by USA, they were using marxist jargon and aiming a revolution (now turned into an armed revisionism). What are we going to say? Leave them alone in their struggle? Or say "freeze, put your gun down&#33;" No we just support it and pave the way for the class consciousness, being aware of this nationality problem is bourgeois in its essence.

Otherwise I think, we postpone the emancipation of proletariat to the infinite, waiting for all the oprressed classes&#39; "aha moment" in which they suddenly realise their class consciousness. Thus, I can feel the spontaneity in left-communist way of thinking, which comrade Lenin criticized in his book.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well Leo Uillean would probably refer you to This work by Rosa Luxemburg. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm) In that she argues that sine the expansion of capitalism has made the exploitation of the workers beyond one Nation state and the Question of Self Determination to national minorites would only help to divide thw working calss movements along the national lines.

Lenin&#39;s position was in opposition to her position. The Bolsheviks&#39; position is summarised in this work. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm)

The historical fact is that the Bolsheviks were correct in this matter. After the whites had been defeated Lenin decided to spread the revolution to whole of Europe in Lenin&#39;s words under the "Bayonets of the Red Army". In fact Lenin was keen to link up the Russian Revolution with the German Revolution which he thought was very much important for the revolution to survive. So the Red Army crossed the newly formed Polish Republic against their own policy of National Self Determination. But they were defeated militarily.Polish - Soviet War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War).The primary cause of this defeat was that the Polish people saw them as heirs to Czar.

[Leo]

Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.[/b]

It is important to note that what Marx expresses here is the subjective demand of the working class for communism and not about the ascendancy or decadence of the capitalist system globally. We already know that in places where capitalist mode of production existed, the working class was capable for putting its subjective demand for communism; the best example of this is the Paris Commune. Working class subjectively demanding and fighting for communism is not the same thing with communism being the only material alternative of the working class and of the world.


Do the left communists think that all of the nations are living in equally same conditions under the imperialism? Or do they attribute any importance to the national rights, by considering the uneven development law, being aware of some nations don&#39;t even have the right of speaking their mother tongue? For example, how do the left communists look to the conditions of English workers in England and Kurdish workers, who don&#39;t have any rights including education in their own language, living in Turkey?

Left communists think that every "nation" is divided into classes and the class interests of the workers is the same with other workers, independent of nationality. Oppression on the basis of nationality is a product of nationalism and it is real. However what will end this oppression on the basis of nationality is not the rise of another nationalism, but proletarian internationalism. What will solve the problems of the Kurdish workers is not national liberation but communist revolution.


The question is, what is the communist attitude towards these kinds of movements? Are we going to mark them as the wars between imperialists or capitalists and deny or condemn them? In the case of Turkey, the guerilla movement (which is one of the biggest in the world and never never mentioned in Negri&#39;s books because of his ignorance) was neihter an imperialist nor a bourgeois movement, but against a bourgeois army which is supported by USA, they were using marxist jargon and aiming a revolution (now turned into an armed revisionism). What are we going to say? Leave them alone in their struggle? Or say "freeze, put your gun down&#33;" No we just support it and pave the way for the class consciousness, being aware of this nationality problem is bourgeois in its essence.

I think you are missing the point here comrade. The point is that this war caused and is still causing the death of workers, workers killing each other, lining behind the ideology of their national bourgeoisie and going away from class demands. Any national liberation movement in the twentieth century, no matter how "Marxist" their rhetoric is, is lead by the national bourgeoisie and is against the working class because the aim of such movement is never a proletarian revolution but a new capitalist state. What we should do is exactly condemning this war, and both the Turkish and the Kurdish bourgeois factions and calling for workers to fight for their class interests instead of the interests of their national bourgeoisies.


Otherwise I think, we postpone the emancipation of proletariat to the infinite, waiting for all the oprressed classes&#39; "aha moment" in which they suddenly realise their class consciousness.

I think that class consciousness develops in class struggle rather than nationalist war. So I think that the situation is the other way around, if we support nationalist wars then we postpone the emancipation of the proletariat to the infinite.

What we should do is to see class struggle and communism which flowers from class struggle as a realistic material alternative, in fact the only realistic material alternative to capitalist barbarism. Quite the opposite from the "aha moment", it is a development of class interests through class struggle which is, although mostly ignored, constantly occurring everywhere in decadent capitalism. As Marx said in the communist manifesto, what we should do is:

1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.


g.ram
The historical fact is that the Bolsheviks were correct in this matter.

I don&#39;t think this is true. Unfortunately, the consequences of the Bolshevik policy on this was catastrophic. Here are a few examples.

In Finland, the Soviet government recognised its independence on the 18th of December 1917. The working class movement in this country was very strong: it was on the revolutionary ascent, it had strong links with the Russian workers and had actively participated in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. It was not a question of a country dominated by feudalism, but a very developed capitalist territory. And the Finnish bourgeoisie used the Soviet power&#39;s gift in order to crush the workers&#39; insurrection that broke out in January 1918. This struggle lasted nearly 3 months but, despite the resolute support the Soviets gave to the Finnish workers, the new state was able to destroy the revolutionary movement, thanks to German troops whom they called on to help them;

In the Ukraine, the local nationalist movement did not represent a real bourgeois movement, but rather obliquely expressed the vague resentments of the peasants against the Russian landlords and above all the Poles. The proletariat in this region came from all over Russia and was very developed. In these conditions the band of nationalist adventurers that set up the &#39;Ukraine Rada&#39; (Vinnickenko, Petlyura etc.) rapidly sought the patronage of German and Austrian imperialism. At the same time it dedicated all its forces to attacking the workers&#39; soviets, which had been formed in Kharkov and other cities. The French general Tabouis who, because of the collapse of the central powers, replaced the German influence, employed Ukrainian reactionary bands in the war of the White Guards against the Soviets.

"Ukrainian nationalism... was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture... To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness - not as a serious national movement for which, afterwards as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution. At Brest, out of this addled egg crept the German bayonets" (Rosa Luxemburg, idem, pages 382-2);

In the Baltic states, (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) the workers&#39; soviets took power in this zone at the same moment as the October revolution. &#39;National liberation&#39; was carried out by British marines: "With the termination of hostilities against Germany, British naval units appeared in the Baltic. The Estonian Soviet Republic collapsed in January 1919. The Latvian Soviet Republic held out in Riga for five months and then succumbed to the threat of British naval guns" (E.H.Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, page 317)

In Asiatic Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, "A Bashkir government under one Validov, which had proclaimed an autonomous Bashkir state after the October revolution, went over to the Orenburg Cossacks who were in open warfare against the Soviet Government; and this was typical of the prevailing attitude of the nationalists" (idem, page 324). For its part the &#39;national-revolutionary&#39; government of Kokanda (in central Asia), with a programme that included the imposition of Islamic law, the defence of private property, and the forced seclusion of women, unleashed a fierce war against the workers&#39; Soviet of Tashkent (the principal industrial city of Russian Turkestan).

In Caucasia a Transcaucasian republic was formed, and its tutelage was fought over between Turkey, Germany and Great Britain. This caused it to break up into 3 &#39;independent&#39; republics (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), which fiercely confronted each other, urged on in turn by each of the contesting powers. The three republics supported with all their forces the British troops in their battle against the Baku workers&#39; Soviet, which from 1917-20 suffered bombardment and massacres by the British;


After the whites had been defeated Lenin decided to spread the revolution to whole of Europe in Lenin&#39;s words under the "Bayonets of the Red Army"... So the Red Army crossed the newly formed Polish Republic against their own policy of National Self Determination. But they were defeated militarily.

The case of Poland should also be mentioned. The national emancipation of Poland was almost a dogma in the Second International. When Rosa Luxemburg, at the end of the 19th century, demonstrated that this slogan was now erroneous and dangerous since capitalist development had tightly bound the Polish bourgeoisie to the Russian Czarist imperial caste, she provoked a stormy polemic inside the International. But the truth was that the workers of Warsaw, Lodz and elsewhere were at the vanguard of the 1905 revolution and had produced revolutionaries as outstanding as Rosa. Lenin had recognised that "The experience of the 1905 revolution demonstrated that even in these two nations (he is referring to Poland and Finland) the leading classes, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, renounced the revolutionary struggle for liberty and had looked for a rapprochement with the leading classes in Russia and with the Czarist monarchy out of fear of the revolutionary proletariat of Finland and Poland" (minutes of the Prague party conference, 1912).

Unfortunately the Bolsheviks held onto the dogma of &#39;the right of nations to self-determination&#39;, and from October 1917 on they promoted the independence of Poland. On 29 August 1918 the Council of Peoples Commissars declared "All treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the government of Prussia or of the Austro-Hungarian Empire concerning Poland, in view of their incompatibility with the principle of the self-determination of nations and with the revolutionary sense of right of the Russian people, which recognises the indefeasible right of the Polish people to independence and unity, are hereby irrevocably rescinded" (quoted in E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol 1, p 293).

While it was correct that the proletarian bastion should denounce and annul the secret treaties of the bourgeois government, it was a serious error to do so in the name of &#39;principles&#39; which were not on a proletarian terrain, but a bourgeois one, viz the &#39;right of nations&#39;. This was rapidly demonstrated in practice. Poland fell under the iron dictatorship of Pilsudski, the veteran social patriot, who smashed the workers&#39; strikes, allied Poland with France and Britain, and actively supported the counter-revolution of the White Armies by invading the Ukraine in 1920.

When in response to this aggression the troops of the Red Army entered Polish territory and advanced on Warsaw in the hope that the workers would rise up against the bourgeoisie, a new catastrophe befell the cause of the world revolution: the workers of Warsaw, the same workers who had made the 1905 revolution, fell in behind the &#39;Polish Nation&#39; and participated in the defence of the city against the soviet troops. This was the tragic consequence of years of propaganda about the &#39;national liberation&#39; of Poland by the Second International and then by the proletarian bastion in Russia.

The outcome of this policy was catastrophic: the local proletariats were defeated, the new nations were not &#39;grateful&#39; for the Bolsheviks&#39; present and quickly passed into the orbit of British imperialism, collaborating in their blockade of the Soviet power and sustaining with all the means at their disposal the White counter-revolution which provoked a bloody civil war.

"The Bolsheviks were to be taught to their own great hurt and that of the revolution, that under the rule of capitalism there is no self-determination of peoples, that in a class society each class of the nation strives to &#39;determine itself&#39; in a different fashion, and that, for the bourgeois classes, the stand-point of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule. The Finnish bourgeoisie, like the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, were unanimous in preferring the violent rule of Germany to national freedom, if the latter should be bound up with Bolshevism." (Rosa Luxemburg, &#39;The Russian Revolution&#39;, Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, page 380)

Doesn&#39;t this indeed prove that the policy of the Bolsheviks was wrong?

[tolstoyevski]

comrade you wrote a small pamphlet here. I don&#39;t have that much strength or time to answer all of these.

But..
if you call out to a suppressed nation, which doesn&#39;t have even a state, and condemn their rightful struggle by which they won many rights including their being recognized by Turkish people etc. then you must be ready to face a group of damnations. I won&#39;t deny that kurdish guerilla movement is a petty-bourgeois, opportunist and nationalist movement. But antidote of their struggle is not the condemnation of their war and to offer a ceasefire. If you do that, which is something partly similar to the official ideology of the state, I&#39;m afraid you will oppose their desire to be independent which is the historical right of every nation. Instead, proletarian parties must start a united war, not against this movement but against the capitalist army, based on classes not nations. It&#39;s the only way to climb to the upper practical level on which they were. Otherwise, it seems to me that you&#39;re speaking with the comfort of being the "revolutionary of dominant nation," as they put it.

maybe aijaz ahmad can explain the situation better:


I refuse to accept that nationalism is the determinte, dialectical opposite of imperialism; that dialectical status accrues only to socialism. By the same token, however, it is only from the prior and explicit socialist location that I select particular nationalist positions for criticism, even at times very harsh denunciation; a critique of nationalism without that explicit location in the socialist project has never made any sense for me, either politically of theoretically. Nor do I accept that nationalism is some unitary thing, always progressive or always retrograde. What role any given nationalism would play always depends on the configuration of the class forces and sociopolitical pratices which organize the power bloc within which any particular set of nationalist initiatives become historically effective... It recognizes the actuality, even the necessity of progressive and revolutionary kinds of nationalism, and it does not characterize nations and states as coercive entities as such.
In Theory..., (Verso, 1992)

Had to study for my exams. :)

[Leo]

if you call out to a suppressed nation, which doesn&#39;t have even a state

I think this is the problem here. The state is never of the proletariat, it is always of the bourgeois under capitalism. Nothing will be different under the state which the nationalists want in Kurdistan for the workers, they will still have to work, they will still be exploited. The result would be a mere change in the nationality of the bosses and the national oppression would still continue for the Kurdish workers in western Turkey of whom the great majority won&#39;t be moving to the new state as they have.


I won&#39;t deny that kurdish guerilla movement is a petty-bourgeois, opportunist and nationalist movement. But antidote of their struggle is not the condemnation of their war and to offer a ceasefire.

I am not really advocating a ceasefire, I am advocating class war.

The key here is to recognize that the bourgeois is not capable of solving any problem of the proletariat. Their ceasefire won&#39;t solve anything either.


If you do that, which is something partly similar to the official ideology of the state, I&#39;m afraid you will oppose their desire to be independent which is the historical right of every nation.

Yet is a nation not made up of classes? The question that should be asked is if this war is in the interests of the working class rather than if this war serves the "historical right" of this or that nation.


Instead, proletarian parties must start a united war, not against this movement but against the capitalist army, based on classes not nations.

I think that any war based on classes is bound to be the target of both the Turkish state and the Kurdish nationalists. I remember that a comrade of mine was saying about Ireland that the British bourgeoisie was much more scared when the protestant and catholic workers came together in class struggle than they were ever scared of the IRA.

It is important to remember that both the armed forces of the Kurdish nationalists and the Turkish Army use proletarians as their soldiers, they use proletarians for their interests, they send proletarians to kill fellow proletarians and to be killed by them if necessary.


Otherwise, it seems to me that you&#39;re speaking with the comfort of being the "revolutionary of dominant nation," as they put it.

:) Except I am not, I am actually a Kurd who has grown up as free as possible from the state ideology, thanks to my family.

I find remarks like this really sad, leftists don&#39;t even see that communists from an "oppressed nation" are capable of talking about class demands, communism as a realistic alternative or in fact anything other than national liberation.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 06:42 pm

I called you stupid because you made stupid conclusions. Saying that there was a market in food in Cuba was stupid, among other things.

But it is real. I am calling you a monkey because judging from your posts it is more possible for you to be a monkey randomly typing your posts. You haven&#39;t made any sense nor have you actually addressed any point since the beginning of the discussion.


Are you saying that Cubans can&#39;t go to basketball and tennis courts?

No, I am saying that Cuban workers don&#39;t own private basketball courts in their homes.


Are you saying that there are no pools in Cuba?

No, I am saying that Cuban workers own private pools.

Nor do they have a big-screen televisions. Nor do they have multiple houses. Nor do they have two-house complexes.


As to my holdings, me and my neighbors used to play basketball together on a regular basis, sometimes on private places (just put up a hoop and there you go), sometimes in public parks. Pools are public, so that&#39;s where I went for that.

It seems that you have to learn the difference between private basketball courts and private pools and public basketballs, putting up hoops and public pools. Private ones are exclusive for the person. In a private pool it is only you who swims, you don&#39;t swim with fifty other people. The water is clean, usually regularly cleaned as if you can own a pool, you can own to hire a worker to clean the pool. In a private basketball court, it is only the people who you want to play with who plays. You don&#39;t wait for others to stop playing, you can&#39;t play for a long time if others are waiting in the line. As for the hoop, if you put it indoors (and if you live in an apartment, you have to put it indoors) you can&#39;t really play, you can mess around but it isn&#39;t basketball. You can&#39;t even use a real ball, you have to use something small. If you put a big one outdoors, you can use a real ball, but you can play with two - three people max. and you can shoot but you usually don&#39;t have enough space to make a real match as it is not a real court.
Well Leo, it seems you can&#39;t offer any real argument, so I&#39;ll let you have the last word on this, knowing that it&#39;ll be just as worthless and insipid as everything else you&#39;ve said.

Leo, you are calling me a monkey because that&#39;s the best you can do. Instead of using reason and responding to my points, you can only call me a monkey, which tells us a little bit about both your maturity and intelligence. In a word, Leo, you&#39;re being infantile.

It seems you aren&#39;t taking into account the circumstances at all. Fidel, whether you like it or not, needs to have some extra protection and isolation. The US tried to kill him multiple times, do you expect him to walk around with a target on his back? Having some isolated courts is something that saves him and his kids from a lot of trouble and possible danger. Furthermore, you have failed to realize that these things are most likely used by his family and not him. Castro, at 80 or so, doesn&#39;t strike me as the basketball or tennis kinda guy; as a matter of fact, he used to play baseball. This would suggest that his family is using these isolated courts more than he. That leaves us with some simple furniture and a nice TV. That&#39;s insignificant and you know it.

Now you&#39;re just being thick. Public pools are just as clean as private ones, and I&#39;ve personally swam in both. Public pools are regularly cleaned by people who know how to clean them (are you really this clueless?). Oh, and it isn&#39;t a problem on public courts to play basketball with whom you want. I&#39;ve played on courts from Paris to NYC to Miami to El Salvador, and it&#39;s never been a problem. If you want to go at the busiest time of the day at the busiest time of the week, you might have to wait (although the players that play then are extremely good), but you&#39;d have to manage your schedule specifically to do so.

Nice try, Leo, but your puritan mindset and your unwavering delusion have failed you. The only thing you&#39;ve proven is your infantile nature, as well as your inability to understand reality.

[Leo]

Well Leo, it seems you can&#39;t offer any real argument

It seems you don&#39;t know how to read.


Public pools are just as clean as private ones, and I&#39;ve personally swam in both.

So have I and they are not. Are you, by any chance, living in a rich neighborhood?


Public pools are regularly cleaned by people who know how to clean them

Once, maybe twice in a year.


The US tried to kill him multiple times, do you expect him to walk around with a target on his back? Having some isolated courts is something that saves him and his kids from a lot of trouble and possible danger.

So he is just fine walking around, traveling to other countries etc. but if he doesn&#39;t have a private tennis court that&#39;s gonna get him killed. That makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:


Furthermore, you have failed to realize that these things are most likely used by his family and not him.

He is living with his wife. His kids aren&#39;t living with him, they are all grown up.

If he doesn&#39;t use those facilities, then this doesn&#39;t make the situation better.

What you don&#39;t understand is, several big houses, a huge tv, several cars, private basketball and tennis courts, private pools etc. are not things that a worker can afford - only a bourgeois can be rich enough to own those things. This is a demonstration of class differences. You have not been able to refute the existence of class differences in Cuba because you are not able to refute the existence of classes in Cuba. You are not able to explain why the Cuban bureaucracy enjoy those kind of stuff and the Cuban workers are living in cottages. You are trying to prove that a capitalist state is socialist, you simply can&#39;t and all of your arguments have been either cheap straw-man attacks or changing or distracting the subject through demagogy.

Anyway, have fun parroting for your "democratic paradise".

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I like to thank Djehuti for the link to Workers Councils. I have been reading this with high interest. It really reflects how I view work and those I work with. At the plant we all cooperate and I have noticed that when we are not pressured we work better. I like the section on "tokens" which is another way of saying Time Labor Vouchers. I believe there has to be some differences of what is earned in each hour. If workers worked in mentally high stress situations or greater physical extersion then of course they would be compensated more than other workers. It would not be an astronomical figure but simply a bit more than the average. A scale could be used from 1 to 4. One being the least stressful to four being stressful. We have to face the fact that there are jobs that could literally kill a person. Lets face it. The new society is mostly about how work is conducted. What people do outside the workplace should be an individual choice. They can waste their time or use it contructively since it would be democratic society.

[Janus]

This is not true, I think. Autonomism did not come from the left communist tradition although council communism came from the German communist left.

Autonomism is rather a general name given to all sorts of anarcho-marxist, libertarian-marxist and other tendencies trying to unite marxism and anarchism which doesn&#39;t have any definite political positions. One autonomist may defend the Zapatistas or national liberation, the other may not. The same thing applies for unions, parlimentarianism etc.
There&#39;s a lot of overlap between left communism and autonomism which is the main thing I was pointing out despite the fact that they did have different origins which is the main thing that I was pointing out.

[Leo]

Some, maybe, but autonomism, or existing autonomists as there is no such thing as established autonomism, are a lot closer to anarchism, I think.

[Janus]

I agree as well. I was just pointing out that a lot of these terms/defintions are usually quite subjective and the differences simply center around their acceptance of a key theoretician of whatever ideology or not.